Jump to content


Photo

What About The Creation Half?


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#1 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:37 PM

The title of this forum is Creation vs Evolution-- but all of the post I have read are ONLY about evolution.

I think that we should finally talk about the CREATION half.

First let me say that I think skepticism is healthy! I'm glad that creationists are questioning the main stream--and you all seem to be doing so with great resourcefulness.

I looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that evolution best explains speciation. You may have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion. That's fine. Great even! Diverse opinions are great.

But why aren't we holding Creationist theory to the same standard of skepticism? Even if in this forum we came to a conclusion that refuted evolution entirely, we wouldn't be a single step closer to proving that God created any of this.

So, where is the proof that God created species? Is it in the bible? If you are going to believe something ABSOLUTELY and literally simply because it is written in the bible, I think you might as well stop there--no point in arguing about evolution at all. As soon as an evolution starts up about some random piece of evidence just say "but the bible says it's not so!" and stop there, because that seems to be all it comes down to.

Discuss! ;)

EDIT: a bit of grammer

#2 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:41 PM

You can check some of my history threads where i show evidence for creation:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3462
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3528

The historical record of man shows that man first appeared intelligently created, as a builder, a writer etc so there is no sign of evolution i.e man having evolve from a lower lifeform when one studies our history. What one learns from studying the earliest of ancient writings is that man has not evolved, i discuss this and what classical texts actually say in the first link i provided above.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:50 PM

I believe more of the problem is that atheists cannot debate creation without making remarks that don't belong. I find maybe 1 out of 30 that can.

#4 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:20 PM

You can check some of my history threads where i show evidence for creation:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3462
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3528

The historical record of man shows that man first appeared intelligently created, as a builder, a writer etc so there is no sign of evolution i.e man having evolve from a lower lifeform when one studies our history. What one learns from studying the earliest of ancient writings is that man has not evolved, i discuss this and what classical texts actually say in the first link i provided above.

View Post


My first reaction to these posts is the following: Why aren't you being as skeptical of these ancient texts as you are of contemporary scientific research? I will continue to read through everything you wrote and will consider posting in those threads if I have anything to add.

But here I want to remain true to the original post. Even if I granted that every ancient text you cited is absolutely true (i.e. none of it is fictional or lies or lost in translation), and even if I accepted your conclusions based on these writings, you would still only have evidence against evolution, and no evidence toward your theory that God created species. The theory of creation as I understand it is that GOD created species. I'm afraid that you're making the classic non-sequitor of "because evolution is wrong, God made species." It does follow! There first needs to be evidence toward the theory that God created species. Where does God come in?

#5 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:26 PM

I believe more of the problem is that atheists cannot debate creation without making remarks that don't belong. I find maybe 1 out of 30 that can.

View Post


Even if it is also a problem, how is it related to anything I said?

#6 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:26 PM

Even before most of us knew what a Bible was we understood at a very young age that things didn't just come into being without a source. A 5 year old understands that the drawings on the teachers blackboard came from other kids.

As you grow up in life you experience this in many other ways. Everything we use had a maker behind it. Logic based on REAL LIFE experience makes the obvious conclusion that something MUCH more complicated like cells in the human body REQUIRE a MUCH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Since our experience has never seen anything created with such complexity (like cars and watches) WITHOUT a source then it stands to good reason and logic that that includes the world and all life in it.

You don't need the Bible to see that.

#7 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:28 PM

My view is, whichever view is being taught as though it is a scientific fact in classrooms all over the world to millions of children, (with tax payers dollars), nature shows/documentaries, etc, surely needs to justify such teachings; not shift burdens of proof elsewhere.

Creationists admit their faith in the origins of life. But what you will see debated on here by creationists is that there is undeniable design within nature that we believe could not come about by chance/random processes. Plus the sponataneous appearance of life, fully formed, rather than any graduation of life forms. All these things and more have been and are debated often over this forum and in alot more depth. So yes, creationists are indeed coming to the table with showing how the evidence around us can just as easily/readily be pointed to a Creator.

What standard exactly are evolutionists held to? I've yet to see any solid/water right evidence to back up the ongoing speculations that we're fed throughout the media/schools and elsewhere.

#8 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:40 PM

Even before most of us knew what a Bible was we understood at a very young age that things didn't just come into being without a source. A 5 year old understands that the drawings on the teachers blackboard came from other kids.

As you grow up in life you experience this in many other ways. Everything we use had a maker behind it. Logic based on REAL LIFE experience makes the obvious conclusion that something MUCH more complicated like cells in the human body REQUIRE a MUCH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Since our experience has never seen anything created with such complexity (like cars and watches) WITHOUT a source then it stands to good reason and logic that that includes the world and all life in it.

You don't need the Bible to see that.

View Post




One of my favorite logical fallacies (no-no's in debates) is the appeal to common sense!

"it stands to good reason and logic that that includes the world and all life in it."

The above is a perfect example of appeal to common sense. Think of it this way: it used to be perfect common sense that the earth was flat, I mean, just look around! A five year old could tell you that the earth was flat just by looking at it!

If you want to assert that God created species, you need to provide evidence that God created species.

Another leap in logic you make is that because "everything complicated we use had a maker behind it" we are also made by a "maker" because we are also complicated. Why should that be true? Just because two things are complicated doesn't mean they were made in the same way.

EDIT: A nice list of logical fallacies for future reference: http://www.don-linds.../arguments.html

#9 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:57 PM

My view is, whichever view is being taught as though it is a scientific fact in classrooms all over the world to millions of children, (with tax payers dollars), nature shows/documentaries, etc, surely needs to justify such teachings; not shift burdens of proof elsewhere.

View Post

But, of course, your view is also being taught as fact to millions of children around the world! ;) Regardless of however many children are being taught a view in however many classrooms around the world, if YOU are going to assert a view YOU need to provide evidence for that view when it is contested.


you will see debated on here by creationists is that there is undeniable design within nature that we believe could not come about by chance/random processes.  Plus the sponataneous appearance of life, fully formed, rather than any graduation of life forms.    All these things and more have been and are debated often over this forum and in alot more depth.

View Post

Yes, they certainly have been. So let's save this thread for talking about creation theory.

So yes, creationists are indeed coming to the table with showing how the evidence around us can just as easily/readily be pointed to a Creator. 

View Post

What evidence!? You neglected to provide any at all. ;)


What standard exactly are evolutionists held to?  I've yet to see any solid/water right evidence to back up the ongoing speculations that we're fed throughout the media/schools and elsewhere.

View Post

If this discussion forum is any indication, a much much higher standard! I want to talk about creation and you bring it right back to evolution every time. One could talk about evolution for an entire lifetime without ever mentioning creation, but talking about creation theory seems to mean attacking evolution--as though disproving evolution will prove creation. It won't! Provide your own evidence about your own assertion!

EDIT: a bit of grammer

#10 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:10 PM

Divine creation would be a supernatural event and thus itself not within the domain of scientific investigation. The closest approach is to find evidence of design using such hypotheses as irreducible complexity, information theory or probability arguments. Scriptural literalists also look for evidence supporting slightly later biblical events such as Noah's flood or focus on the age of the Earth.

#11 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:24 PM

Divine creation would be a supernatural event and thus itself not within the domain of scientific investigation. 

View Post

The birth of a race of invisible unicorns from space would be a supernatural event--so does that make it lie "outside of the domain of scientific investigation". If so, why don't you believe in invisible space unicorns, or mount Olympus, or any other number of imaginable yet unprovable things.

The closest approach is to find evidence of design using such hypotheses as irreducible complexity, information theory or probability arguments.  Scriptural literalists also look for evidence supporting slightly later biblical events such as Noah's flood or focus on the age of the Earth.

View Post


I don't understand how irreducible complexity, information theory, or probabilty arguments relate to God--explain further.

As for the flood and age of the earth, even if I granted there was a great flood and that the earth was much younger than scientists think, you would be no closer to proving that God created species.

#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:33 PM

But why aren't we holding Creationist theory to the same standard of skepticism? Even if in this forum we came to a conclusion that refuted evolution entirely, we wouldn't be a single step closer to proving that God created any of this.

So, where is the proof that God created species? Is it in the bible?

View Post


The first paragraph I agree with you on this :D Finding one explanation false doesn't necessarily mean that the rival argument MUST be true.

Yes it says God created life according to their kinds, (aka species), and that they will breed along their own kind... (Which is what we observe in nature in reality today :) )

Another thing I can point at which indicates to a common creator is the similarities between organisms and their make up. I mean this as in how they are made up of cells. All life is made of cells. For the most part each cell is similar to other cells, in terms of structure and composition. Each kind of orgnisms is unique, yet is similar due to the same design, within its cell structure.

IF life were to form via random chance, (I would expect that there would be many differing forms, rather than just carbon-based life)...

On this line of inquiry, life itself can be used as proof of a creator. Since as far we know now.. Life is unable to spontaneously form in nature.

Another thing is the Cambrian explosion, where fossils of (fully formed) vertibrates came about in the record, VERY quickly... (hence it is called an explosion ;) )... This is inconsistant with evolution and shows that vertibrates seemed to "appear" without warning..

EDIT: However the nature of Science demands close scrutiny. Since it is based on observed data. Religion on the other hand, is not the same as science in this sense and as such you cannot expect to treat both the same way.

This is assuming that Evolution is a Scientific theory, (which I do not agree with), if it isn't then there probably would be less burden of proof needed as it isn't scientific ;)

#13 Nadan10

Nadan10

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Buffalo, New York

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:58 PM

The first paragraph I agree with you on this :D Finding one explanation false doesn't necessarily mean that the rival argument MUST be true.

Yes it says God created life according to their kinds, (aka species), and that they will breed along their own kind... (Which is what we observe in nature in reality today :) )

View Post


By "observe in nature in reality" you really mean "observe in the very very recent history of nature." If you only observed what happens within, let's say, a single human life time, I agree that you would find that species breed along their own kind.

Another thing I can point at which indicates to a common creator is the similarities between organisms and their make up. I mean this as in how they are made up of cells. All life is made of cells. For the most part each cell is similar to other cells, in terms of structure and composition. Each kind of orgnisms is unique, yet is similar due to the same design, within its cell structure.

IF life were to form via random chance, (I would expect that there would be many differing forms, rather than just carbon-based life)...

View Post


AH no, you're starting to just attack evolution again! But since you've tempted me, I must point out that your exact argument is used by evolutionists everywhere, and was the line of thinking that lead to the theory of evolution in the first place! We are all so, so similar, because we have common ancestors. This is also why all species fall into a perfect family tree.

But focus on creation!

On this line of inquiry, life itself can be used as proof of a creator. Since as far we know now.. Life is unable to spontaneously form in nature.

View Post

So because (as far as we know) life can't form spontaneously there must be a God that created life? I don't accept this leap.


Another thing is the Cambrian explosion, where fossils of (fully formed) vertibrates came about in the record, VERY quickly... (hence it is called an explosion ;) )... This is inconsistant with evolution and shows that vertibrates seemed to "appear" without warning..

View Post

Even if I accepted this as proof against evolution, where does God come in?

EDIT: However the nature of Science demands close scrutiny. Since it is based on observed data. Religion on the other hand, is not the same as science in this sense and as such you cannot expect to treat both the same way.

This is assuming that Evolution is a Scientific theory, (which I do not agree with), if it isn't then there probably would be less burden of proof needed as it isn't scientific ;)

View Post

You are asserting a theory about the origin of species. If you have no evidence for your theory, it is worthless. Why do you hold evolution to such scrutiny yet accept creation theory when you (based on this post) have no evidence whatsoever that God created species.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:23 PM

By "observe in nature in reality" you really mean "observe in the very very recent history of nature." If you only observed what happens within, let's say, a single human life time, I agree that you would find that species breed along their own kind.
AH no, you're starting to just attack evolution again! But since you've tempted me, I must point out that your exact argument is used by evolutionists everywhere, and was the line of thinking that lead to the theory of evolution in the first place! We are all so, so similar, because we have common ancestors. This is also why all species fall into a perfect family tree. 

But focus on creation!
So because (as far as we know) life can't form spontaneously there must  be a God that created life? I don't accept this leap.
Even if I accepted this as proof against evolution, where does God come in?
You are asserting a theory about the origin of species. If you have no evidence for your theory, it is worthless. Why do you hold evolution to such scrutiny yet accept creation theory when you (based on this post) have no evidence whatsoever that God created species.

View Post


Ok seems like I have to explain this to you.

Firstly, what we observe in nature is what happens in nature. Anything else is assumption and / or imagination. This is consistant with Mendels First LAW which goes against evolution, and shows that life does procreate the way the BIBLE intends. This is how God is proven in this example, via the Bible.

Ah no. I did show how God is shown via this evidence. All life shows common DESIGN. Design implies a creator, ie- God.

FYI the "tree of life" is by no means perfect, (for example where are the single cell to multi-cell transitionals, how about the transitionals for the emergence of the exoskeleton, and what about wings) you may assume it is, but what you assume doesn't make it truth.

You fail (or refuse) to see my point. If life cannot come about via a naturalistic process, (and it has been shown that it can't via chirality and other phenomena that prevent it).... Then either

A) there is no life (which is untrue)

OR

B ) Life came about via a non-naturalistic process, ie a supernatural process... Implying a Creator.

Again you fail to see my point. If vertebrate life "appeared", then isn't that something similar to the Creation mentioned in the Bible. Which in itself imples a God.

#15 Phil

Phil

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 29
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Canada

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:43 PM

Firstly, what we observe in nature is what happens in nature. Anything else is assumption and / or imagination.

Sorry for cherry picking this line, but we do not see special creation happening in nature. If we don't see it happening in nature then according to you it is either assumption or imagination. Since you believe in creationism then you don't think it is imagination, so am I correct that your view of creationism is an assumption?

#16 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:47 PM

Firstly, what we observe in nature is what happens in nature. Anything else is assumption and / or imagination. This is consistant with Mendels First LAW which goes against evolution, and shows that life does procreate the way the BIBLE intends. This is how God is proven in this example, via the Bible.

View Post


If Mendels First LAW is true, why do we see such variation in species such as dogs? There are breeds of dog with attributes that aren't seen in other dogs. You can't breed a rottweiler from a spaniel and a hypothetical proto-dog wouldn't spawn breeds of either in one generation.

Ah no. I did show how God is shown via this evidence. All life shows common DESIGN. Design implies a creator, ie- God.

View Post


A design does imply a designer. It also implies design tools, methodology. manufacture and a goal. You can then infer from a finished product the tools, method, manufacturing process and goal of that product.

You fail (or refuse) to see my point. If life cannot come about via a naturalistic process, (and it has been shown that it can't via chirality and other phenomena that prevent it)....

View Post


How does chirality stop life arising naturally? Once a replicating unit has picked an isomer of amino acids that it can use to reproduce, what's to stop it?

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:22 AM

1. If Mendels First LAW is true, why do we see such variation in species such as dogs?  There are breeds of dog with attributes that aren't seen in other dogs.  You can't breed a rottweiler from a spaniel and a hypothetical proto-dog wouldn't spawn breeds of either in one generation.

2. A design does imply a designer.  It also implies design tools, methodology. manufacture and a goal.  You can then infer from a finished product the tools, method, manufacturing process and goal of that product.

3. How does chirality stop life arising naturally?  Once a replicating unit has picked an  isomer of amino acids that it can use to reproduce, what's to stop it?

View Post

1. Mendel's LAW is true, that is why it is a Law...lol..

Um do you know what his Law states? The first law states that organisms will recieve the same amount of chromosomes from their parents via S@xual reproduction... Hence a dog will stay a dog, etc as the amount of chromosomes will stay the same within the same kind.

The different breeds of dogs is variation, (which is observed), this is where natural selection does work and brings out differing characteristics within a kind to create differing breeds within the same kind. There is no evolution here dude, sorry to burst your bubble.

2. Exactly my point :) DNA are the tools of the manufacture of new life.. However we run into problems of how the first DNA came about as proteins are needed to replicate DNA, yet DNA is needed to code for specific proteins.

Also with a designer there is a purpose to life, (as you mentioned), whereas with evolution life is just a lucky fluke and there is no point to existance.

3. Chirality is where in nature both the left and right handed forms of a compound are formed. This is where the problems of Thalidamide came in as one form acted as birth control whereas the other caused deformities in the babies... Anyway, Miller ran into this problem with his own amino acids, half were right handed and half were left handed... YET... All DNA in life is left handed. The only time we see right handed DNA in organisms is when they die, (as it reverts to the 50/50 mix)... So Miller reconstructed death...lol... Showing that naturalistically a left-handed DNA based life is not acheiveable.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:27 AM

Sorry for cherry picking this line, but we do not see special creation happening in nature.  If we don't see it happening in nature then according to you it is either assumption or imagination.  Since you believe in creationism then you don't think it is imagination, so am I correct that your view of creationism is an assumption?

View Post


No problem dude, good point.

Yes we don't see it happening, as it doesn't need to happen again... :)

Whereas evolution is thought to be a naturalistic process, therefore must be occuring all the time, as nature has no off switch... The same is not true for supernatural processes as they are at the whim of the supernatural force that creates them. Therefore we do not have an opportunity to see such processes unless it is the will of the one doing them ;)

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:38 AM

1. Mendel's LAW is true, that is why it is a Law...lol..

Um do you know what his Law states? The first law states that organisms will recieve the same amount of chromosomes from their parents via S@xual reproduction... Hence a dog will stay a dog, etc as the amount of chromosomes will stay the same within the same kind.

View Post


Then why does the number of chromosomes vary even within species? Cats for example.

The different breeds of dogs is variation, (which is observed), this is where natural selection does work and brings out differing characteristics within a kind to create differing breeds within the same kind. There is no evolution here dude, sorry to burst your bubble.

View Post


So here we agree ;) I'm not saying that it is evolution. I'm saying that breeds can be so far removed from each other that they bear no resemblance to the original ancestor.

2. Exactly my point :) DNA are the tools of the manufacture of new life.. However we run into problems of how the first DNA came about as proteins are needed to replicate DNA, yet DNA is needed to code for specific proteins.

Also with a designer there is a purpose to life, (as you mentioned), whereas with evolution life is just a lucky fluke and there is no point to existance.

View Post


DNA by itself does nothing. RNA on the other hand can not only be it's own template but also it's own catalyst.

3. Chirality is where in nature both the left and right handed forms of a compound are formed. This is where the problems of Thalidamide came in as one form acted as birth control whereas the other caused deformities in the babies... Anyway, Miller ran into this problem with his own amino acids, half were right handed and half were left handed... YET... All DNA in life is left handed. The only time we see right handed DNA in organisms is when they die, (as it reverts to the 50/50 mix)... So Miller reconstructed death...lol... Showing that naturalistically a left-handed DNA based life is not acheiveable.

View Post


Thalidomide was developed as a anti-nausea drug for combating morning sickness or a sedative if memory serves. Miller showed that amino acids can be formed without complex chemical reactions. There are natural filters that select left handed over right handed isomers of amino acids even though they are nearly chemically identical.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:54 AM

Even if it is also a problem, how is it related to anything I said?

View Post


You asked so I gave you my experience here and on three other boards. Youtube, and my website.

We don't allow either side to do these things. Every time a thread is started concerning things about creation. It's not long before flat earthers is brought up. among others things that I know you know. And because most atheists cop an attitude because they will accept zero correction from a group of people they considered beneath them. They get banned for it.

be warned, if you feel the need to belittle people here, or mock God, it won't be tolerated




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users