Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 91 of 427 (791082)
09-10-2016 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-09-2016 10:01 PM


quote:
Exactly how the meander was cut is less important than the fact that it wasn't cut by the rushing water of the receding Flood as PaulK assumed I meant.
When you say that the Grand Canyon was cut by water from the Flood I would assume that you meant pretty much all of it. Apparently you don't but you are being very unclear about what you do mean.
Let us make it clear again. The Grand Canyon itself meanders - it has curves in it, like a river course. Are you singling out those sections and saying that they were cut by the river ? If so, why couldn't the river have cut the whole thing ?
quote:
That first great volume of water would have cut down through strata and carved out the canyon. It should have been a huge amount of water that also cut the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau as it got down to the level of the current rim of the canyon, also the other flat areas around the csnyon. It was on such a flat plateau that the meander formed, from water left over from the receding Flood but settled down to a river running across a plateau. This is AFTER the cataracts that would have cut the canyon proper.
So, apparently the Grand Canyon we see today was carved by the river ? And the "canyon proper" is something else ? I keep asking you to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper" and you keep refusing to explain. Do you even know what you mean ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 10:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:28 AM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 92 of 427 (791083)
09-10-2016 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-08-2016 3:28 PM


Maybe the issues Morton raises at his own website ...
No, that is not his own website, but rather another site echoing his old site. His old web site is no longer, having been taken down in ... a fit ... er ... uh ...
Here is the explanation offered by an antagonist to creationism, Anon-Ra at this URL
Some fragments of Glenn R. Morton's former site remain, eg, http://web.archive.org/...062417/http://home.entouch.net/dmd, at the WayBack Machine web archive site. It seems to have captured most of his old site, though unfortunately none of his report on an "intelligent design" conference he had attended. Fortunately it did capture his "Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle" pages.
Edited by dwise1, : WayBackMachine link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-08-2016 3:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:13 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 93 of 427 (791084)
09-10-2016 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-09-2016 10:56 PM


You ASSUME Glenn was reading the evidence accurately; you ASSUME his judgment was the most reasonable judgment possible.
Wrong. You are still struggling to figure out how rock layers are formed while trying to deny the evidence that supports the explanations you've been given. So I assume that your reading is completely bogus.
There is no reason at all to think it took such a long time and every reason to recognize that the Flood is enough to account for a rapid carving of the canyon.
The explanation have to describe all of the evidence including the ordering of fossils, the radiometric characteristics associated with non-sedimentary layers, etc. Your explanation is that what is observed is illusion. But Morris faced the reality of what you call illusion in his work.
So we make some supportable about Morris ability to view the evidence based on his education and we can use both observation and your lack of experience and your daily errors to make some judgments regarding your own hypotheses.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 10:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:05 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 94 of 427 (791085)
09-10-2016 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
09-10-2016 3:35 AM


I am not "struggling" to find out anything about rock layers. I suppose you draw that wrong conclusion from the other thread? But that thread has the purpose of showing that the standard Geo understanding is wrong. What is the matter with you NN? You hardly ever get anything right, in fact you get it ridiculously wrong over and over.
All I'm arguing against Morton is what I argue all the time as a YEC against the views he arrived at. What's the big deal? I'd still like to go through his website and discuss his many changes of mind.
When he describes how YECs reacted to his changed views I feel sorry for him. I don't accuse him of being insincere, I'm sure he honestly arrived at his conclusions and his former colleagues were out of line to accuse him as he says they did. That doesn't require me to accept his conclusions, and they make an opportunity for a YEC to debate them as usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2016 3:35 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2016 2:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2016 2:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 427 (791087)
09-10-2016 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by dwise1
09-10-2016 1:56 AM


Well, that's certainly a new wrinkle on the Glenn Morton story. To me anyway. Now what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2016 1:56 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2016 5:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 427 (791088)
09-10-2016 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
09-10-2016 1:11 AM


So, apparently the Grand Canyon we see today was carved by the river ? And the "canyon proper" is something else ? I keep asking you to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper" and you keep refusing to explain. Do you even know what you mean ?
All you would need to do is have a little flexibility and fairness. When I say the canyon was carved by the receding Flood water I have in mind the huge dimensions of it, I'm not necessarily thinking of every square inch of it, and you COULD be fair and suggest that since there are areas that don't appear to be describable in the terms I've given that perhaps I'm not including them. But no, you have to act like I must mean every square inch and that gives you the right to treat me like I'm cra*zy because there's an area that can't be described in such terms. "I'm sure you didn't really mean to include such and such" is perfectly fair and decent debate form, but it's very rare to find anyone here with that attitude. You could even ASK if I mean to include this or that section of the canyon.
So you force me to address the meanders. There may be meanders all along the river but the canyon itself is eighteen miles wide at one point, and that couldn't have been created by a river, whereas a great rush of water at the end of the Flood could explain it. The river formed after it had all washed away. The meander in the area of the photo I put up had to have occurred after the receding water washed the plateaus around the canyon flat. Such a rush of water is the best explanation for the breaking up of the strata above the Kaibab rim, for the scouring of the plateaus, for the formation of the Grand Staircase, and for the formation of the canyon itself though most likely not every square inch of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2016 1:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2016 8:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 427 (791089)
09-10-2016 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by dwise1
09-10-2016 12:37 AM


I ignored most of your post and answered the part that I wanted to answer. Lying is not the word for that. I ignore lots of posts these days. Most of what you are saying is incomprehensible and irritating, in that earlier thread and in this one.
I don't know what a specifically YEC approach to finding oil would be, but I don't see why it isn't possible since OE absolute dating is not necessary to it.
What are you complaining about anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2016 12:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by herebedragons, posted 09-10-2016 9:54 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 98 of 427 (791090)
09-10-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
09-10-2016 8:28 AM


quote:
All you would need to do is have a little flexibility and fairness.
Wrong. You need to stop pretending that other people are to blame for your failures to communicate. Especially when the that failure seems to be a simple refusals to explain yourself.
And I note that yet again you fail to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper"
quote:
When I say the canyon was carved by the receding Flood water I have in mind the huge dimensions of it, I'm not necessarily thinking of every square inch of it, and you COULD be fair and suggest that since there are areas that don't appear to be describable in the terms I've given that perhaps I'm not including them
In fact I do deal with that possibility (second paragraph). And you might also note that even the section you quote is questioning, asking you to explain.
And I might also suggest that asking you to explain is better than attributing a crazy view to you.
Finally I will point out that if sections of the canyon are not attributable to your post-flood rush of waters then they certainly cannot be entirely responsible for the scale of the canyon.
quote:
So you force me to address the meanders. There may be meanders all along the river but the canyon itself is eighteen miles wide at one point, and that couldn't have been created by a river, whereas a great rush of water at the end of the Flood could explain it.
As others have already pointed out the width of the canyon is not explained by the river, but by subsequent erosion.
quote:
The meander in the area of the photo I put up had to have occurred after the receding water washed the plateaus around the canyon flat.
But - and this is the point we coming back to - the meander is the canyon, at least at that point. So are you now saying that the river formed the canyon completely ? If it formed the meandering sections, and those sections link the canyon together then it is really hard to see how any other explanation makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:28 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 09-10-2016 9:17 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 99 of 427 (791091)
09-10-2016 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
09-10-2016 8:44 AM


reality yet again.
PaulK writes:
Faith writes:
The meander in the area of the photo I put up had to have occurred after the receding water washed the plateaus around the canyon flat.
But - and this is the point we coming back to - the meander is the canyon, at least at that point. So are you now saying that the river formed the canyon completely ? If it formed the meandering sections, and those sections link the canyon together then it is really hard to see how any other explanation makes sense.
There is much that does not make sense.
Faith claims that all of the material above the bedrock was deposited by the alleged flood.
That makes the whole column a marine sediment example (although granted a really minor short lived marine environment lasting no more than a single year) and so it must show those characteristics that identify a marine deposit. Those characteristics are really well known and one is a moderated horizontal deposition of material in layers sorted by flow speed.
Since we are dealing with a flood there will be an initial disturbed scouring phase followed by the calm period when material can be deposited. That is when the material above the bedrock was deposited. That will result in horizontal layered deposits with the densest material at the bottom and the finest least dense material at the top.
But the material deposited will already be flat and horizontal and level; there is no need for any receding flow to wash anything flat.
Those conditions are easy to verify.
Are the layers above the bed rock flat, horizontal and level?
Well no, they are not.
Are the layers above the bed rock sorted with the densest material at the bottom and the finest least dense material at the top?
Well no, they are not.
The conclusion is obvious and irrefutable. The geological column of material above the bed rock at the Colorado Plateau was not laid down during any single event.
Throw the Biblical flood on the trash heap as a possible explanation for the existence of the Plateau.
AbE:
The significance of the above is that for the purpose of this topic whether or not the Grand Canyon was formed by the alleged flood is totally irrelevant. The Biblical Flood as described in either of the Bible stories cannot explain the existence of the Colorado Plateau. There is no other explanation available that can explain the existence of the Colorado Plateau other than an Old, Old, Old, Old, Old Earth, one that is billions of years old.
Young Earth should be thrown on the trash heap of history.
Edited by jar, : appalin grammur last -----> lasting
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2016 8:44 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 9:44 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 427 (791092)
09-10-2016 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
09-10-2016 9:17 AM


Re: reality yet again.
It shouldn't be a "marine environment" if it merely carries terrestrial items for a brief period and then deposits them.
The plateau DID need to be washed clean and flat after the Flood because it had strata layered above it to a great depth, and all that had to be washed away. It wasn't all washed away in the Grand Staircase for instance, but the Kaibab Plateau WAS washed flat.
You all seem to be making up difficulties that don't exist.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 09-10-2016 9:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 09-10-2016 9:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 101 of 427 (791093)
09-10-2016 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
09-10-2016 9:44 AM


Re: reality yet again.
Faith writes:
It shouldn't be a "marine environment" if it merely carries terrestrial items for a brief period and then deposits them.
Sorry Faith but reality once again must be considered.
The definition of a marine environment is material deposited in a large body of water. Water covering the whole world might be considered a large body of water.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 9:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(4)
Message 102 of 427 (791094)
09-10-2016 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
09-10-2016 8:33 AM


OE model vs YEC model
I don't know what a specifically YEC approach to finding oil would be, but I don't see why it isn't possible since OE absolute dating is not necessary to it.
Just as a simple example of the difference between a "YEC approach" and traditional geological methodologies... much of the high quality coal was formed during the Carboniferous period and is found in Carboniferous aged formations. As such, there is no real need to assign an absolute age of 299 mya to 359 mya to formations in order to identify them as potential coal bearing layers, but there does need to be a methodology to identify formations of the proper "age" that belong to the appropriate period.
YEC has no method or model that ties Carboniferous formations together. Essentially, the YEC "model" is to assert that coal would have formed during the flood due to the billions of dead creatures that died. This "model" does nothing to describe where these deposits would occur, or what types and "ages" of formations we should look in. If you examine your own points on what a global flood would do, you would see there is no discernible pattern or consistency that would allow one to predict where a coal seam should be found. If you identify Carboniferous formations by the fauna (such as index fossils) and by the presence of coal, those are really just traditional geological methodologies - you would just deny the absolute ages (which denial of old ages is pretty much the whole of YEC methodologies).
Oil is a bit more complicated since it involves permeable and impermeable rock units that act to trap the oil. However, the same idea applies. Flood geology has no working model that produces any sort of consistent pattern that would allow one to predict where these formations are most likely to occur. Traditional geology can make predictions based on processes that form the types of rocks that are of interest in oil exploration. Predictions about what type of formations would be found in an area can be made based on knowledge of surrounding areas and the processes that build those formations. Flood geology has nothing like that... no predictive power what-so-ever.
If you believe that a flood model CAN predict these types of things then explain, using a flood paradigm, why we find major coal deposits between Permian deposits and Devonian deposits. Your answers in the past have been along the lines of "the flood waters just carried material around where ever it did and deposited it where ever it did." Not much of a consistent, predictive model, now is it?
A good predictive flood model would be something like "the Devonian was the basal surface of the flood and the organic matter was present on this basal surface and subsequently covered by sediments." **However, even though that model might explain coal formation, it creates other problems. Not only is there the problem that organic matter would not settle out before the huge amount of sediments that covered it, but also the deposits below that "basal surface" need to be explained without means of a global flood.**
There is just NO predictive flood model - just a lot of "the flood can explain everything rhetoric." If you disagree, present the flood (YEC) model that explains coal and oil AND predicts where it would be found.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 09-10-2016 10:03 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 2:05 PM herebedragons has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 427 (791095)
09-10-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by herebedragons
09-10-2016 9:54 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
The original Saudi oil fields were discovered using YEC methods. They drilled for water but hit oil instead.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by herebedragons, posted 09-10-2016 9:54 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 427 (791100)
09-10-2016 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by herebedragons
09-10-2016 9:54 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Just as a simple example of the difference between a "YEC approach" and traditional geological methodologies... much of the high quality coal was formed during the Carboniferous period and is found in Carboniferous aged formations. As such, there is no real need to assign an absolute age of 299 mya to 359 mya to formations in order to identify them as potential coal bearing layers, but there does need to be a methodology to identify formations of the proper "age" that belong to the appropriate period.
OE wouldn't have any better method for that would it? They have to identify the rock first don't they? Or do you mean radiometric dating?
YEC has no method or model that ties Carboniferous formations together.
Don't know what you mean "tie Carboniferous formations together." Isn't most identification possible through fossils and the order of the layers/
Essentially, the YEC "model" is to assert that coal would have formed during the flood due to the billions of dead creatures that died. This "model" does nothing to describe where these deposits would occur, or what types and "ages" of formations we should look in. If you examine your own points on what a global flood would do, you would see there is no discernible pattern or consistency that would allow one to predict where a coal seam should be found.
'
But there is an observable pattern that a YEC can't deny even if there is no way to explain it by the Flood: simply studying the rocks, knowing that the fossils occur in a certain order, which a Floodist could ascertain as well as anyone else, -- aren't these the ways the rocks are identified? A YEC would be looking at the physical arrangement under relative dating. An OEG would be adding in ancient ages -- to what purpose I don't know, but that's the only difference I'm aware of.
If you identify Carboniferous formations by the fauna (such as index fossils) and by the presence of coal, those are really just traditional geological methodologies - you would just deny the absolute ages (which denial of old ages is pretty much the whole of YEC methodologies).
Yes I agree, the absolute ages would be treated as irrelevant by YECs, but otherwise a YEC who had studied the rocks should know as much as an OEC or OEG, because it's basically a physical problem. How old the Carboniferous is doesn't add anything useful to knowing where it is. So far that is the ONLY difference I can see in how a YEC would approach the problem compared to an OEG, and although I've asked many times so far nobody has made a good case for the necessity of the absolute ages.
Oil is a bit more complicated since it involves permeable and impermeable rock units that act to trap the oil. However, the same idea applies. Flood geology has no working model that produces any sort of consistent pattern that would allow one to predict where these formations are most likely to occur.
Floodists can see the order of the rocks and the fossils as well as anybody else and those ought to be sufficient to guide a person to the right location. Again, it would take someone who had studied the rocks to know where to look for those kinds of rocks where oil would be found. Why would a Floodist be at any more of a disadvantage than the OE guy -- UNLESS the old ages really do contribute important information, and again, nobody has yet shown this to be the case.
Traditional geology can make predictions based on processes that form the types of rocks that are of interest in oil exploration.
But what do those predictions and processes have to do with absolute ages? And if they don't then why couldn't a YEC learn them as well as an OEC/G? The point is that all you need to know is the disposition of the rocks; you don't really need a theory about how they got that way that I can see, you just need to know that they occur in a certain relation to each other with certain fossil contents. Isn't that so?
Predictions about what type of formations would be found in an area can be made based on knowledge of surrounding areas and the processes that build those formations. Flood geology has nothing like that... no predictive power what-so-ever.
All it would take to know those things would be to study the rocks, HBD, what on earth does any theory of their formation do to improve your chances over just knowing the lie of the rocks? And a FLoodist can study that as well as anyone else. How does OE earth THEORY help in that enterprise? Theory shouldn't help at all; it's all about being a rockologist. I'm sure that's how OEers find oil and there's no reason why a YEC with the same knowledge couldn't too?
If you believe that a flood model CAN predict these types of things then explain, using a flood paradigm, why we find major coal deposits between Permian deposits and Devonian deposits. Your answers in the past have been along the lines of "the flood waters just carried material around where ever it did and deposited it where ever it did." Not much of a consistent, predictive model, now is it? '
I don't think we NEED to know WHY. And you haven't said why we would need to know why. The model doesn't point to the rocks, it's the knowledge of the rocks that points to the rocks, and that knowledge is available by studying the rocks, the theories have nothing to do with it.
A good predictive flood model would be something like "the Devonian was the basal surface of the flood and the organic matter was present on this basal surface and subsequently covered by sediments." **However, even though that model might explain coal formation, it creates other problems. Not only is there the problem that organic matter would not settle out before the huge amount of sediments that covered it, but also the deposits below that "basal surface" need to be explained without means of a global flood.**
There is just NO predictive flood model - just a lot of "the flood can explain everything rhetoric." If you disagree, present the flood (YEC) model that explains coal and oil AND predicts where it would be found.
You haven't said how the OE model would be more predictive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by herebedragons, posted 09-10-2016 9:54 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2016 3:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 341 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 12:37 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 427 (791101)
09-10-2016 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-10-2016 8:05 AM


I am not "struggling" to find out anything about rock layers. I suppose you draw that wrong conclusion from the other thread? But that thread has the purpose of showing that the standard Geo understanding is wrong.
Your failure to understand standard geology is manifestly on display in that thread. You don't appear to even know what it is that is wrong after 100s of posts on the matter.
When he describes how YECs reacted to his changed views I feel sorry for him. I don't accuse him of being insincere
No. You have accuse him instead of being stupid ignorant of the explanations you know, which are largely made up and held by you alone. You accuse him of holding a ridiculous belief, which is how you describe the old earth's beliefs. And you do all of that while knowing a tiny fraction of the evidence Morris encountered on a routine basis.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:05 AM Faith 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