Jump to content


Photo

Life Only Comes From Life


  • Please log in to reply
432 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 April 2009 - 06:43 PM

This is a scientific law. As a scientific law this has had a tremendous effect on our lives and the way we look at things from food storage to medical practices.

How does an atheist circumvent this known law to pretend they arrive at atheism through science?

#2 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2009 - 06:54 PM

This is a scientific law. As a scientific law this has had a tremendous effect on our lives and the way we look at things from food storage to medical practices.

How does an atheist circumvent this known law to pretend they arrive at atheism through science?

View Post

It's not a scientific law. If it ever was considered such, it's been thorough discredited as a law since Darwin. A law is a general observation with no known exceptions, and according to the evidence and analysis of this evidence, it appears very much that all life comes from non-life.

In any case, even if it's just a matter of dispute, it would fail as a law until the dispute is resolved, and the alleged exceptions are shown to fail as exceptions.

-Touchstone

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 April 2009 - 07:09 PM

Please share one exception where life comes not from life.

P.S. - Speculation does not overcome the law of biogenesis.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 April 2009 - 07:33 PM

Hi Touchstone,

In any case, even if it's just a matter of dispute, it would fail as a law until the dispute is resolved, and the alleged exceptions are shown to fail as exceptions.


Shifting the burden of proof to disguise a leap of faith?

Evidence to believe such an event should'nt be based on "Prove it can't happen then i'll believe".

What evidence is there for it?


Thanks.

#5 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2009 - 07:48 PM

Please share one exception where life comes not from life.

Every living thing you could name, yourself included, would qualify. Look, structural flaw is easy to spot -- the regression implied by "comes from". If life X comes from Y then Y must have come from somehting alive, if we are going to uphold the concept behind the law of biogenesis. But on a dozen different interlocking measures, the planet's got a fixed point of origin, a point before which it was so much space dust and gas -- an inhospitable environment for life, to be sure.

Even if we entertain the fanciful idea that life was somehow imported from somewhere else, that only delays the problem some billions of years more. Just after t=0, there was not only no life, there wasn't even ELEMENTS, from which to compose the molecules of which life is made. At some trillions of degrees, the superdense and unfathomably small but rapidly expanding universe is both a totality and and totally hostile to the idea of extant life.

So, life necessary must have arisen from non-life, if the Big Bang is a fact. Somewhere along the timeline, the conditions when from completely impossible for supporting life to "possible", and some point after that, realized life. Since Darwin, we've had a huge piece of this puzzle solved, accounting for the development of all the diverse species and and organisms we observe around us. Further, the chemical analysis of organic life indicates that the recipe for life requires raw materials that are abundantly available *as* raw materials. Life is made out of non-living compounds -- water is "non-living", right?

In light of that, we cannot reasonably support the idea that life is an eternal chain in the universe, as the ancients supposed. Even indulging for the moment (!) supernatural explanations -- special creation -- life came from non-life, necessarily.

P.S. - Speculation does not overcome the law of biogenesis.

View Post

No, but science does. There is no scientific law acknowledged as a law that has anything like the structural and empirical flaws that the biogeny carries with it.

-Touchstone

#6 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2009 - 08:06 PM

Hi Touchstone,
Shifting the burden of proof to disguise a leap of faith?

Not sure where you are seeing a shift. We have empirical and logical reasons to conclude that live didn't exist in the universe at points past, the first moments after t=0 being as stark an example of "no life possible" as one could imagine. Given the support for just that, the observations we have of one animal giving birth to another animal are just empirically superficial as the basis for such a law. If we had some body of theories that suggested matter/energy *could* be destroyed, and was, the first law of thermodynamics would fall.

Evidence to believe such an event should'nt be based on "Prove it can't happen then i'll believe".

What evidence is there for it?

Prove what can't happen. We see life coming from life all the time. But we also see one high tide follow a low tide followed by a high tide, and on and on an on in the oceans. Would you suggest a "Law of the Tides", where we state the law "A high tide can only come from a low tide, and a low tide can only from a high tide"? If you have reason to think that at some point there were no oceans and no tides, then such a notion isn't worth spending any more thought on as a scientific law.

Thanks.

View Post


-TS

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 April 2009 - 08:15 PM

So, life necessary must have arisen from non-life, if the Big Bang is a fact.

View Post

The Big Bang is a fact? Even with the flabby speculation used to derive the Big Bang, secular scientists are working hard to scrub the notion of a finite beginning out of science. Fun little new baseless speculations like multiverses and eternal bubble universes are being postulated to ignore the problem of studying a Universe that shows all the tales of being finite. Get the April addition of Astronomy magazine. The cover says "Why the Universe Had No Beginning" as if they've discovered something beyond some agnostic astrophysicists daydreaming something, Anything! other than a Universe with a finite past. (Some scientists must be studying up on Vishnu and finding it pretty compelling. :blink: )

Somewhere along the timeline, the conditions when from completely impossible for supporting life to "possible", and some point after that, realized life. Since Darwin, we've had a huge piece of this puzzle solved, accounting for the development of all the diverse species and and organisms we observe around us.

View Post

Pure speculation.

Further, the chemical analysis of organic life indicates that the recipe for life requires raw materials that are abundantly available *as* raw materials. Life is made out of non-living compounds -- water is "non-living", right?

View Post

Ah, this is a slight of hand maneuver if I've ever seen one. Yes we are all made of non-living elements but anyone who is honest can distinguish between life and non-life. We can quibble over something like a virus but even if we take the high road as creationists and allow viruses to be included in the definition of life there is a known pattern that confounds the evolutionists. You need virus before you can get more virus. You need bacteria before you can get more bacteria. You need worms before you can get more worms. You need people before you can get more people.

Furthermore, you never see virus turn into bacteria or bacteria into worms or worms into people. Though sometimes people seem to turn into worms.

In light of that, we cannot reasonably support the idea that life is an eternal chain in the universe, as the ancients supposed. Even indulging for the moment (!) supernatural explanations -- special creation -- life came from non-life, necessarily.

View Post

Pardon me? God is Life by definition. He is eternal life.

#8 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2009 - 09:27 PM

The Big Bang is a fact? Even with the flabby speculation used to derive the Big Bang, secular scientists are working hard to scrub the notion of a finite beginning out of science. Fun little new baseless speculations like multiverses and eternal bubble universes are being postulated to ignore the problem of studying a Universe that shows all the tales of being finite. Get the April addition of Astronomy magazine. The cover says "Why the Universe Had No Beginning" as if they've discovered something beyond some agnostic astrophysicists daydreaming something, Anything! other than a Universe with a finite past. (Some scientists must be studying up on Vishnu and finding it pretty compelling. :blink: )

This sounds like anodyne self-reassurance. Look, it doesn't matter if there is a parent universe, or a cyclic universe, or whether the universe just "poofed" into existence out of utter nothingness. None of that saves the law of biogenesis from defeat. Life cannot get through the Big Bang bottleneck. It's precisely BECAUSE our local universe is finite that the law of biogenesis cannot stand.

None of the "multiverse" speculations -- and those are purely speculative constructs -- apply or matter here. Just the empirical evidence we have for the big bang breaks the back of the law of biogeneis.

Pure speculation.

Ok, this suggests even more that you are just working to convince yourself. The evidence for the Big Bang is strong. You might as well say "everything is speculative", if you won't accept observation and applied theory. Hubble was a very strong base decades ago, and the CMBR confirmations obtained in the 1980s, twenty years after Gamow's famous predictions have made BBT a theory with solid predictive performance, to go along with its already strong explanatory power and evidence accounting. There are several other supporting lines of examination to go through as well. But "pure speculation" as a response to BBT, if that is indeed what it was responding to, is not a serious response in light of what's available to us.

Ah, this is a slight of hand maneuver if I've ever seen one. Yes we are all made of non-living elements but anyone who is honest can distinguish between life and non-life. We can quibble over something like a virus but even if we take the high road as creationists and allow viruses to be included in the definition of life there is a known pattern that confounds the evolutionists. You need virus before you can get more virus. You need bacteria before you can get more bacteria. You need worms before you can get more worms. You need people before you can get more people.

Well, what I was getting at there is the idea that if living things were discovered to have some kind of "essence" or element that we suspect "animated" them, something that we didn't find anywhere but in living cells, that would tend to support the idea of life being "biologically unique" with respect to the rest of nature. But that's NOT what we've found. Instead, we're just made of the same stuff everything else is. That in itself doesn't account for the organization and formation of living organisms, but it leaves the door open, in terms of component materials, for "life from non-life", in a way that finding "essence of life" elements in all living cells would not.

As for the "you need people before you can get more people" line, even *you* don't believe that. There was a time when there were no people. And you do not suppose any people were needed to get Adam. Or do you suppose you needed some other human to beget Adam?

Furthermore, you never see virus turn into bacteria or bacteria into worms or worms into people. Though sometimes people seem to turn into worms.
Pardon me? God is Life by definition. He is eternal life.

View Post

It's facile to suppose that all we can *currently* see is normative for reality across all time. Evolution -- not the biological theory, but just the idea of 'change over time' -- is a general enough concept we can apply to the things we *can* see to understand that the way things are now is not the way things always were, or always will be. It's not easy work sorting through all that to arrive at reasoned conclusions about what really is universally constant across space and time, and what is subject to change, but "people only come from people" is one that doesn't make it past even a little scrutiny as a universal law.

-Touchstone

#9 RonningMan

RonningMan

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 15 April 2009 - 10:20 PM

1. How is it possible to falsify abiogenesis?

2. Are any of these statements wrong? If so, why?
a. Oxygen = no abiogenesis.
b. No oxygen = lack of ozone layer = UV-radiation = no abiogenesis
c. There is no known way for ozone to form without atmospheric oxygen.
d. There is no known way for oxygen to form without life that requires sunlight.

New study confirms abundant oxygen in the early atmosphere:
http://www.physorg.c...157124234.html]

And of course, abiogenesis has never been observed.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 April 2009 - 11:10 PM

This sounds like anodyne self-reassurance. Look, it doesn't matter if there is a parent universe, or a cyclic universe, or whether the universe just "poofed" into existence out of utter nothingness. None of that saves the law of biogenesis from defeat. Life cannot get through the Big Bang bottleneck. It's precisely BECAUSE our local universe is finite that the law of biogenesis cannot stand.


I would consider that circular reasoning,if you rely on the assumption of the big bang to validate life coming from non life.Even given the assumption of the big bang,how would that falsify theistic evolution?

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 April 2009 - 11:18 PM

1. How is it possible to falsify abiogenesis?

2. Are any of these statements wrong? If so, why?
a. Oxygen = no abiogenesis.
b. No oxygen = lack of ozone layer = UV-radiation = no abiogenesis
c. There is no known way for ozone to form without atmospheric oxygen.
d. There is no known way for oxygen to form without life that requires sunlight.

New study confirms abundant oxygen in the early atmosphere:
http://www.physorg.c...157124234.html]

And of course, abiogenesis has never been observed.

View Post


Thanks for the link RonningMan.

I've been hearing for a long time that oxygen forming in the atmosphere was the trigger that started the cambrian explosion.If they have the wrong starting point,then i guess they will always be proven wrong.But hey,they don't have to admit it,they can just hide behind sciences skirt and call it "science is self correcting". :blink:


Thanks.

#12 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2009 - 11:46 PM

1. How is it possible to falsify abiogenesis?

How about have God come down and create life ex nihilo for us? I think with enough witness and instrumentational observation, that would make the claims of divine special creation favorable over abiogenesis.

A visit from aliens arriving with plausible documentation of their involvment, complete with the revelation of their own "copyright" codes steganographically embedded in DNA would work well, too. But that would only solve the matter for our planet. How the aliens came to be would then rise as the next obvious question.

2. Are any of these statements wrong? If so, why?
a. Oxygen = no abiogenesis.

Unknown. Oxygen is problematic for scenarios like Miller-Urey, but we have no idea at this point what the field of plausible scenarios are, and how oxygen may interfere, or not. I'm assuming you mean "free oxygen" here when you say "oxygen", because there was plenty of oxygen avail as components in water molecules in the ocean. Oxygen abounded, it just wasnt' atmospheric. Even so, deep sea vent scenarios for abiogenesis do not run afoul of the atmospheric oxygen problems of other scenarios.

b. No oxygen = lack of ozone layer = UV-radiation = no abiogenesis

Unsupportable as a sequence, or a claim. We do not have a working knowledge of what the scenarios plausibly form living cells from inorganic compounds. The ozone and oxygen content timelines of the planet are very sketchy as well. I think the premise that ozone is the only plausible shield for UV radiation from the sun is also untenable. If abiogenesis occurred in a deep sea vent, all these constraints are off, and we don't know what over plausible hypotheses may be out there yet to be discovered.

c. There is no known way for ozone to form without atmospheric oxygen.

I am not aware of any such mechanism.

d. There is no known way for oxygen to form without life that requires sunlight.

I am not aware of any such mechanism.

New study confirms abundant oxygen in the early atmosphere:
http://www.physorg.c...157124234.html]

If the objection is what I think it is, here -- that atmospheric oxygen prevented abiogenesis -- then you are dealing with swings of 500 million years one way or the other. The article puts the hematite core at 3.5Gya. OOL estimates get placed anywhere between 4.2Gya and 3.0Gya. And before we go further, it's not clear that oxygen in the atmosphere is even relevant to abiogenesis -- scenarios like the deep see vent hypothesis wouldn't be threatened by this. But even if we focus on an "atmospheric scenario", there's hundreds of millions of years of plausible time-window for OOL to occur before the formation of an oxygen-filled atmosphere.

Not only does ample opportunity for OOL exist, even in atmospheric scenarios, the OOL->oxygenated atmosphere sequence is explained by OOL itself, with OOL giving rise to early photosythesizing organisms that provided the "oxygen factory" for the atmospherics suggested by this article.

Lastly, one of the bases for estimating the date for OOL is the formation of oxygen in the atmosphere, based on the production of oxygen by photosynthesizing organisms. That means that if the oxygenation of the atmosphere gets pushed back, the OOL estimates would get pushed back as well. The time frames given don't require this -- there's hundreds of millions of years leeway there as is -- but revision of the oxygen-rich atmosphere timeline will likely cause a concomitant push back in the time estimates for OOL.

And of course, abiogenesis has never been observed.

View Post

Neither has gravity. We only observe its effects.

-TS

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 April 2009 - 04:31 AM

Touchstone,

It's odd watching someone who says they don't need faith, exercising so much of it to justify the latest materialistic explanations of events that were dreamed up and unverifiable.

You think you have us in a corner when we can't demonstrate the creation event, but you don't, and here is why. Christians present so much of the same evidence, that evolutionists have to people, and explain why they believe it points in a certain direction. Without being able to duplicate events or without being able to manipulate God (I praise Him for that) we tell people that they can trust in Jesus and have a personal relationship with Him with a mustard seed worth of faith because of what we know. Christian apologetics is so strong because it works and it's based on truth even acknowledging limitations which is wisdom.

On the other hand, evolutionists exercise a boatload of faith and claim they aren't, while hiding under the skirt of having popular opinion among scientists. This is a problem because it is an untruth. First, because it is faith based, a religion if you please. Second, a growing untruth, as more scientists wake up to how much faith they do invest in an unsubstantiated and increasingly nonviable hypothesis, like abiogenesis, and all the grand claims of common descent.

I think if you're going to exercise faith either way, why not place it in God who has revealed Himself supernaturally for 6000 years and for 3500 years of recorded history. The only reason I can think, is someone having a predisposed bias to reject Him over issues of sin. The testimony of atheists who became Christians is my evidence (C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Alister McGrath, William Lane Craig, etc...), in addition to my own testimony and countless others... oh, and the Bible tells us clearly as well.

Adam

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 16 April 2009 - 05:54 AM

Atheist will continue to deny the law of biogenesis because their godless religion REQUIRES IT.

Life comes from life, Atheist please, you have to prove that life does not come from life first. I'm not sorry, but please anything other than evidence is faith based and pure speculation.

Also, remember that the BIG BANG is doing alot of poofing, either you believe that the universe poofed itself into existance, or your a creationist who believes that GOD did it.

Now, don't go into all the mumbo jumbo about how complex the Big Bang is, or to be atheistically/politically correct the GREAT EXPANSION, for which little to no evidence exist for it.

Atheist truly think, that the way light enters the telescope proves that the universe is expanding. I'm sorry but that is incorrect, when light enters a telescope I can all but guarantee you that light will shift from within the telescopes mirrors. Kind of like red shift... which is correctly called telescope shift. So, this is basically all the BIG BANG has going for it, and really it's not all that convincing, but be that as it may... many atheist must by atheistical law.... cling to it.

#15 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:27 AM

It's not a scientific law.

View Post


I figured this would be your response. Your words are meaningless in this forum. Let's try backing up some of the things you assert.

First you are 100% wrong. There is a Law of Biogenesis. There is also the Cell Theory which is a repackaging of the Law of Biogenesis.

The below quote is from Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog of Evolution) regarding the Theory of Biogenesis. The article is here. I hope you will read it all as it goes into a detailed history of the development of the theory, and the final realization that there are no known exceptions to the law.

I commenced this Address by asking you to follow me in an attempt to trace the path which has been followed by a scientific idea, in its long and slow progress from the position of a probable hypothesis to that of an established law of nature. Our survey has not taken us into very attractive regions; it has lain, chiefly, in a land flowing with the abominable, and peopled with mere grubs and mouldiness. And it may be imagined with what [270] smiles and shrugs, practical and serious contemporaries of Redi and of Spallanzani may have commented on the waste of their high abilities in toiling at the solution of problems which, though curious enough in themselves, could be of no conceivable utility to mankind.


If it ever was considered such, it's been thorough discredited as a law since Darwin.

View Post


Nope. Sorry. You'll have to back this one up! Not one scientific publication can be put forth that discredits the Law of Biogenesis. Period. This is nothing more than atheistic faith at work. In fact, it was Darwin's supporters who declared the theory a law of nature after Darwin published his work.

Since this declaration the Law of Biogenesis is confirmed every day in every biologically oriented lab and hospital all around the world. In fact, evolution demands that the law of biogenesis be true. If it weren't then evolution would fall apart.

A law is a general observation with no known exceptions, and according to the evidence and analysis of this evidence, it appears very much that all life comes from non-life.

View Post


:unsure: :lol: :lol: This statement truly is deserving of the LOL smiley faces!

You are correct in your description of a scientific/natural law, but your statement that "all life comes from non-life" is just not true. In fact you can't put one piece of evidence forth that indicates that life has come from non-life. You can only assert your faith in naturalism. The evidence demonstrates the LOB, not abiogenesis.

In any case, even if it's just a matter of dispute, it would fail as a law until the dispute is resolved, and the alleged exceptions are shown to fail as exceptions.

-Touchstone

View Post


Nope. It doesn't fail as a law until an exception is known. Period. No scientist anywhere can provide that exception. Abiogenesis is a philosophical faith. It is not scientific.

Every abiogenesis theory relies on two principles. One is evolution before life, and the other is spontaneous generation of life. There is zero evidence of the first, and the second was falsified years ago. But the faithful like you still pursue their faith.

#16 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:16 AM

This is a scientific law. As a scientific law this has had a tremendous effect on our lives and the way we look at things from food storage to medical practices.

How does an atheist circumvent this known law to pretend they arrive at atheism through science?

View Post

You got 'em scared, Adam. Just look how fast they're responding these days:

This page was last modified on 15 April 2009, at 18:40 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Biogenesis

The law of biogenesis is huge in medicine. This is another case where those who reject truth only do so on paper. In the real world, they want their doctors using sterilized equipment; they want their milk pasteurized, etc. etc.

#17 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:59 AM

How does an atheist circumvent this known law to pretend they arrive at atheism through science?

View Post

To more directly answer the question now. Some think laws can be evaded by postulating "special conditions" (and with the help of the time goddess). It's not scientific - it's an ad hoc antiscientific reaction to science.

And the cherry atop the whole thing: without exception, their "abiogenesis research" always affirms the law of biogenesis. Even with sophisticated equipment and tons of money, and what we're told are great minds, they still continue to obtain non-life from non-life every single time they try.

They've made more progress moving the goalpost than any other way. Their total accumulated yardage is actually negative, for they continue to discover more and more obstacles which they previously assumed would not exist.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:00 AM

You got 'em scared, Adam. Just look how fast they're responding these days:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Biogenesis

The law of biogenesis is huge in medicine. This is another case where those who reject truth only do so on paper. In the real world, they want their doctors using sterilized equipment; they want their milk pasteurized, etc. etc.

View Post

Can't imagine that this change has anything to do with this but it does have to do with a consistent stream of viable criticism like this.

Look at the wording of this change. No bias, right? :unsure:

http://en.wikipedia....oldid=280797920

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:06 AM

Wow! I didn't know we could get access to their edits. I knew right away the article had been "tweaked" since the last time I saw it.

Might be interesting, one of these days, to review the history of some of their articles. You know, see just how accurate they used to be at one time. But not today...

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:11 AM

Wow! I didn't know we could get access to their edits. I knew right away the article had been "tweaked" since the last time I saw it.

Might be interesting, one of these days, to review the history of some of their articles. You know, see just how accurate they used to be at one time. But not today...

View Post


I just figured it out. If a Wiki editor is reading this they'll probably take steps to hide it from the public... :unsure:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users