Switch Theme:

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

I do have to say my respect for Bill Nye took a pretty big hit when he went into the Global Warming debate.

People get their panties in a twist when scientists speak out against it, without a direct background in climatology, even if they are from a myriad of fields that directly tie into it. Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. Yet when he spoke up about it, everyone cheered, despite his background with it being no more then any other amateur.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

This seems like a perfect example of when NOT to have a debate.

It's thoroughly useless to argue with someone who isn't willing to allow themselves to be persuaded to change their opinion. And this is a clear cut case of two people so completely convinced of their own correctness, and their opponent's wrongness, that nothing productive can come from it. The only people who are going to be interested in this are people who either A) already have a nostalgic, antagonistic, or supportive connection to one of the two participants, or B) people who just want to see someone who disagrees with them get 'proven' wrong.

No one is going to walk way from this debate going "oh, that guy made some excellent points. Maybe my understanding of this issue could be more nuanced, possibly even reversed." Everyone is going to leave either convinced that their guy trounced the other guy, or that their guy got robbed.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!

Te Guy who doesnt want Kids to think critically

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 02:07:17


5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 djones520 wrote:
People get their panties in a twist when scientists speak out against it, without a direct background in climatology, even if they are from a myriad of fields that directly tie into it.


You know why? Because when those scientists "speak out" against global warming it's very obvious from their arguments that they have absolutely no understanding of climate science. Global warming is indisputable fact, and the case for our responsibility for at least a major part of it is pretty overwhelming. And, like it or not, there's a tougher burden of proof on you when you're trying to overturn near-unanimous agreement than when you're just using your position of influence (as Bill Nye did) to repeat the agreed-on facts.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The idea of a middle ground that incorporates both is a logical fallacy.



How so? Honestly.


If a person can see the fairly clear evidence of evolution, but still chooses to believe that it was started by some form of supreme being, how is that not technically in line with both ideologies? I mean, yeah if you read the biblical accounts of how our world was created, it says 7 days. Elsewhere in the bible, it talks about the span of time that passes in the blink of an eye, by God's perceptions. By my reasoning, who's to say that "6 days plus a day of rest" is not in the human scale, and rather means "1 eye blink=1000 years x # of blinks per day x 7 days... give or take"



For the record, I'm siding with Bill Nye here. Young Earthers are just all kinds of crazy. @Peregrine: I honestly think that Bill Nye's experience on TV, and "dumbing down" science into really cool kids' shows will significantly play to his favor of outlining actual science. Recently, I've been taken by some of the greatest minds, and how they are so easily capable of making just about any scientific idea accessible to someone like me. Guys like Neil Tyson Degrasse and Bill Nye are obviously "weapons" that the scientific community has, that the young earther camp does not. And for the Record, IIRC Neil Tyson Degrasse has come out saying that he is still religious, he just has issues with it being brought into science classes, or to WORK in the scientific community.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Jimsolo wrote:
And this is a clear cut case of two people so completely convinced of their own correctness, and their opponent's wrongness, that nothing productive can come from it.


Not really. Bill Nye isn't just convinced of his own correctness, he's backed up by overwhelming evidence on the level as the proof for the theory that the username attached to this post is "Peregrine". Ken Ham, on the other hand, is a liar and a fraud who gets too much power and money from his position to ever stop lying. The only question here is whether Ken Ham is good enough at lying and dishonest debating tactics to look good in front of an audience that doesn't know enough about the subject to spot his blatant lying.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 02:10:29


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

 Peregrine wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
People get their panties in a twist when scientists speak out against it, without a direct background in climatology, even if they are from a myriad of fields that directly tie into it.


You know why? Because when those scientists "speak out" against global warming it's very obvious from their arguments that they have absolutely no understanding of climate science. Global warming is indisputable fact, and the case for our responsibility for at least a major part of it is pretty overwhelming. And, like it or not, there's a tougher burden of proof on you when you're trying to overturn near-unanimous agreement than when you're just using your position of influence (as Bill Nye did) to repeat the agreed-on facts.


BUT IT WAS COLD FOR A FEW DAYS THIS WINTER!

Global warming = dubunked

   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it really wouldn't. The average young-earth creationist also believes that 95% of "practicing believers" are hell-bound sinners who worship at the altar of a false god. And they certainly aren't going to accept any "compromise" position that doesn't include a 6000 year old earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

And then of course there's the practical value of using evolution as an "us vs. them" strategy to unify the religious right against an outside enemy. Even if there could theoretically be some kind of compromise that strategy alone is valuable enough to give a lot of incentive to fight evolution to the death.


Yes, but I was pretending that the young-Earthers were reasonable people who--- nope, I can't even type that with a straight face. You're right, Peregrine... It's as much about politics as it is about faith. I just wish that the particular brand of faith that those people adhered to didn't promise them rewards in the afterlife for making the rest of us less intelligent.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

It's mostly because that line of speculation is useless. It tries to redeem an idea when there's no single reason why we would need to include that idea in the equation. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, except in the head of people that needs to include God in their worldviews.


So whats wrong with that. As long as people accept the science behind it, there is nothing wrong with believing in gods providence.

Look I'm no bible thumper, but, science can't disprove God (it can disprove what some people say about God). Evolution is fact and God is a belief, the two are not mutually exclusive. Now if you want to be a radical on one side or the other, that's up to you, but don't we have more pressing issues to argue about?

The issue really is when one side takes itself way too seriously. Scientists can say evolution is a fact, because well it is. Other can say God played a role in that science, it doesn't lessen the science. Nobody has to believe in God or a creator or anything. There is no harm in that belief though as long as it does not get in the way of the science.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/31 03:34:32


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
II grew up in a Catholic school, and we used to watch Bill Nye in science class at the beginning of every new unit. It'll be interesting to see if they continue airing his shows in the curriculum if he smashes creationism hard enough.
Catholic doctrine doesn't hold a literalism view of creation.


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





These sorts of things always sound like a great idea, where we'll get to see the lies and nonsense of these idiots shown up in direct debate, but it never seems to work out like we'd hoped.

The problem, I think, is that the Creationist side of the debate is built up on a whole list of clever sounding bits nonsense and half-truths, that require either a scientific background or a fair bit of thinking to realise why they're bunk... whereas the science side of the debate is built up of a really complex body of knowledge that's been focused on figuring out how things actually work, not on how they might be easily represented to people who lack specialist knowledge.

Guess which one plays best in front of a crowd in a debate style format?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
I do have to say my respect for Bill Nye took a pretty big hit when he went into the Global Warming debate.

People get their panties in a twist when scientists speak out against it, without a direct background in climatology, even if they are from a myriad of fields that directly tie into it. Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. Yet when he spoke up about it, everyone cheered, despite his background with it being no more then any other amateur.


There's a big difference between "I am not an expert in this field but I am going to do my best to explain in laymen's terms what the experts believe" and "I am not an expert in this field but I am going to do my best to contradict what the expert's believe".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 04:46:40


ā€œWe may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.ā€

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The idea of a middle ground that incorporates both is a logical fallacy.



How so? Honestly.


If a person can see the fairly clear evidence of evolution, but still chooses to believe that it was started by some form of supreme being, how is that not technically in line with both ideologies? I mean, yeah if you read the biblical accounts of how our world was created, it says 7 days. Elsewhere in the bible, it talks about the span of time that passes in the blink of an eye, by God's perceptions. By my reasoning, who's to say that "6 days plus a day of rest" is not in the human scale, and rather means "1 eye blink=1000 years x # of blinks per day x 7 days... give or take"



For the record, I'm siding with Bill Nye here. Young Earthers are just all kinds of crazy. @Peregrine: I honestly think that Bill Nye's experience on TV, and "dumbing down" science into really cool kids' shows will significantly play to his favor of outlining actual science. Recently, I've been taken by some of the greatest minds, and how they are so easily capable of making just about any scientific idea accessible to someone like me. Guys like Neil Tyson Degrasse and Bill Nye are obviously "weapons" that the scientific community has, that the young earther camp does not. And for the Record, IIRC Neil Tyson Degrasse has come out saying that he is still religious, he just has issues with it being brought into science classes, or to WORK in the scientific community.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground



That link that you posted doesn't really have any bearing in this case. Just because something is some sort of "middle ground" doesn't mean it's necessarily a logical fallacy, or untrue. All that link is saying is that a middle ground argument can be untrue, or a fallacy, not that it must be. And in this case, there's nothing that definitively makes it a logical fallacy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 04:59:16


   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 Breotan wrote:
 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
II grew up in a Catholic school, and we used to watch Bill Nye in science class at the beginning of every new unit. It'll be interesting to see if they continue airing his shows in the curriculum if he smashes creationism hard enough.
Catholic doctrine doesn't hold a literalism view of creation.


After being in Catholic education until I was 18 (including mandatory religious education) I can categorically state that creationism was never taught, and that the church did not interpret Genesis as literal

 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground
That link that you posted doesn't really have any bearing in this case. Just because something is some sort of "middle ground" doesn't mean it's necessarily a logical fallacy, or untrue. All that link is saying is that a middle ground argument can be untrue, or a fallacy, not that it must be. And in this case, there's nothing that definitively makes it a logical fallacy.


An example;

"You say the sky is red and your say the sky is blue, so clearly the sky is purple."

It is not;

"You say the sky is red and you say the sky is blue, but I think its purple?"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/31 05:19:22


   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

Who are you replying to, LoH?

Edit: NM. I found it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 05:12:18


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 LordofHats wrote:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground
That link that you posted doesn't really have any bearing in this case. Just because something is some sort of "middle ground" doesn't mean it's necessarily a logical fallacy, or untrue. All that link is saying is that a middle ground argument can be untrue, or a fallacy, not that it must be. And in this case, there's nothing that definitively makes it a logical fallacy.


Middle ground fallacy is as follows;

"You say the sky is red and your say the sky is blue, so clearly the sky is purple."

It is not;

"You say the sky is red and you say the sky is blue, but I think its purple?"



Edit: That's a good example of why it wouldn't apply in this case.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/31 05:19:38


   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Hordini wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground
That link that you posted doesn't really have any bearing in this case. Just because something is some sort of "middle ground" doesn't mean it's necessarily a logical fallacy, or untrue. All that link is saying is that a middle ground argument can be untrue, or a fallacy, not that it must be. And in this case, there's nothing that definitively makes it a logical fallacy.


Middle ground fallacy is as follows;

"You say the sky is red and your say the sky is blue, so clearly the sky is purple."

It is not;

"You say the sky is red and you say the sky is blue, but I think its purple?"



Edit: That's a good example of why it wouldn't apply in this case.


Basically the middle ground does not dictate fallacy.

Its actually more like the sky is obviously purple, but some people want to argue if its reddish blue or bluish red......who cares? It doesn't change how the sky works.

That being said, I'm fine with scientists that don't believe in God, I really have a problem with people who don't believe in science though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 05:33:35


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in us
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot





Equestria/USA

Instead of making a long quote wall I'll just say Andrew1975. I agree with your above statement, being fine with scientists that don't believe in God, I really have a problem with people who don't believe in science though. This sums up a lot of my feeling towards this debate. My parents church used this debate as an example of what's wrong with the world. And that there is no real debate here for " the true believers." I'll let them believe what they want, and I'll stick with science.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 05:55:17


Black Templars 4000 Deathwatch 6000
 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

Well I mean I guess I just I don't get the debate. Evolution is a fact, its not really debatable. Now, you can either believe that it is completely natural or guided by something, either way it doesn't matter.

Strict creationists are just as whacky as scientists that try to use science to disprove God. I mean if you think Dinosaur bones are a trick....you have some serious issues.

Isn't that all Bill would need to do? "DI-NO-SAURS, Thank you for playing".

I look forward to this debate just to watch the ridiculousness. Its the same reason I love the Starwars VS StarTrek Threads. Its like watching a monkey try to hump a football.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 06:03:57


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

The sky is blue, red, and purple. This argument confuses me...
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Wrong. Clearly the sky is black as the darkest night.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 LordofHats wrote:
Wrong. Clearly the sky is black as the darkest night.
It's not black, it's just a really desaturated blue/red/purple. Keep your heathen logic out of here!
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 d-usa wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
Wrong. Clearly the sky is black as the darkest night.
It's not black, it's just a really desaturated blue/red/purple. Keep your heathen logic out of here!


Heretic!


   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





So what's going to happen (as it does in almost all of these debates) will be Bill Nye tearing the Young Earther down by drowning him in science (which he will ether chose to ignore or not understand) while the Young Earther (Ken Ham in this scenario) will ether try to counter-drown Nye in "metaphors" and use the argument towards emotion in exchange for evidence, or will try to poke holes in Evolution which it seems in many peoples opinions, completely disproves evolution and proves creationism. I'm also still waiting for evidence for creation, and not evidence against evolution, and evidence for the whole god theory. Also, I'm highly doubtful any being in such a state of power would possess human emotions and being such a spiteful thing, and the concept of worshiping such an evil and malicious being (as it is presented in the bible) does require one to remove their morals.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/01/31 15:57:56


Little orphans in the snow
With nowhere to call a home
Start their singing, singing
Waiting through the summertime
To thaw your hearts in wintertime
That's why they're singing, singing 
   
Made in gb
Hulking Hunter-class Warmech




North West UK

 DogofWar1 wrote:
My philosophy is that God set up the universe, came up with the 4 forces, the whole matter thing, and then pressed go.

Then came back about 5K years ago and went "WHOA, WTF, PEOPLE, STOP THAT WITH THAT CAMEL. STOP! RIGHT NOW!"

And eventually he just told his son to do it. And bam, Old and New Testament. Meanwhile, we still screwed it all up (Crusades).

Also, in between start and old testament, I like to think God went golfing with Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. God scored an 18, because he's the best golfer in the universe, while Lucifer scored a 69 and everyone made fun of him for it.

Hence, the rebellion.


This theory I like

Not One Step Back Comrade! - Tibbsy's Stalingrad themed Soviet Strelkovy

Tibbsy's WW1 Trench Raid Diorama Blog
 Ouze wrote:

Well, you don't stuff facts into the Right Wing Outrage Machine©. My friend, you load it with derp and sensationalism, and then crank that wheel.
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork





The Ruins of the Boston Commonwealth

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!

What example of his work would you recommend?


How about 25 questions? It's a book by several authors but mostly Ham

Edited by AgeOfEgos

As for this thread. I wash my hand of it. GOOD BYE.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/02 01:16:11


 
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







 Overlord Thraka wrote:
 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!

What example of his work would you recommend?


How about 25 questions? It's a book by several authors but mostly Ham

Also Birdbrain, (Peregine or however you spell it) You utterly disgust me. You with your oh-so-strong opinion of yourself constantly thinking your point is the correct one no matter what anyone else says.

As for this thread. I wash my hand of it. GOOD BYE.

I wasn't able to find a book named "25 Questions", but maybe this is the one you mean? Link

I've been reading through the sample. Unfortunately it all seems to be pretty standard fare, mostly based on sweeping statements that assume the answer ("God done it") but including false statements as well (that all mutations necessarily decrease information). Then he talks about "irreducible complexity." Irreducible complexity is a notion that's thoroughly discredited for a raft of reasons, to the extent that even Darwin himself refuted it in The Origin of Species.

Here's an example of that refutation:
The Origin of Species wrote:We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swimbladder. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or 'ideally similar,' in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration.

In any event, I would be surprised if Ken Ham brings up Irreducible Complexity in the debate, as it's been refuted from all sorts of angles.

He also asks, "how could information (DNA) have come from nothing, with no context to interpret it?" but that seems to have been tentatively answered by scientific development. Research is ongoing!

In the next chapters, Ken Ham launches a spirited defense of the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that it was created in six days. This one is quite interesting and has some funny quotes:
The New Answers Book 1 wrote:To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible's teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can't prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work, without any moral cause, but still calls it all "very good."

I actually have more respect for the guy reading what he's written in the other chapters. It's quite interesting to see his point of view, and key bits are laid out in cute cartoons. He's clearly very into internal consistency and doesn't like the idea that the Bible is up for interpretation, as well as not liking some of the implications of that non-literal interpretation.

So, thanks for that reference. It was very interesting to read and look into. Unfortunately, as I've outlined his arguments presented there against evolution are totally bunk (and I think I should mention that "evolution is wrong, therefore God" isn't logically sound either) and it sort of undermines his position as a biblical literalist. The work does give a better idea of who he is as a person, though, and it suggests some good things about him.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Overlord Thraka wrote:
How about 25 questions? It's a book by several authors but mostly Ham


And an impressive monument to ignorance and greed. Because let's be honest here, nobody writing these books is actually stupid enough to believe what they write, they've just figured out that their gullible followers are a profitable market to exploit.

Also Birdbrain, (Peregine or however you spell it) You utterly disgust me.


That's ok. I still think you're a pretty cool guy, whoever you are.

You with your oh-so-strong opinion of yourself constantly thinking your point is the correct one no matter what anyone else says.


You know why that is? Because my point IS correct. Evolution is indisputable fact, and the opposition to it is on the same level as the crazy guy on the corner screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but if you disagree with me on this you are simply wrong.

As for this thread. I wash my hand of it. GOOD BYE.


You'll be back.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

His argument devolved quickly...
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Chicago

Not sure how you can have a debate when faith is involved


DT:80S+++G+++M+B++I+Pw40k00+D++A(WTF)/areWD100R+++++T(T)DM+ 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: