Thing

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 10 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Thing

• 
  273

  greatest show on earth

  by unstopableravens in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

  to be honest my mind has been on my family.

  i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  sorry was using IE - lost all the formatting
• 
  273

  greatest show on earth

  by unstopableravens in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

  to be honest my mind has been on my family.

  i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  It's always hard with Dawkins, to know whether he is presenting information that all evolutionary biologists agree with, or whether some of the information is debatable. Ernest Mayr is considered one of the leading evolutionary biologist's of the 20th century. Consider what he says regarding Dawkins theory of the selfish gene. "An individual either survives or doesn't, an individual either reproduces or doesn't, an individual either reproduces very successfully or it doesn't. The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30's and 40's, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene."
• 
  4

  Welsh secretary criticised for speaking against gay couples raising children

  by Scott77 in

  1. social
  2. current

  welsh secretary criticised for speaking against gay couples raising childrentory mp david jones says same-sex couples cannot provide 'warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children'.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/gay-couples-children-welsh-secretaryi think, this troubling and uncalled for.

  but how about straight couples?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  In France a very interesting situation is arising where some homosexuals are indeed protesting against the introduction of same-sex marriage (there are others who are protesting for it).

  These homosexuals can't accept the proposed law to introduce same-sex marriage, because they had a mom and dad like everyone else. They want it to be that way for all kids unless very adverse circumstances determine otherwise.

  There is an interesting interview on YouTube where an atheist gay activist by the name of Xavier Bongibault shares his protest against same-sex marriage.

  The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QHvxMVW6AE4

  As the interview is in French, the translation of what he is saying is as follows:

  Good day, Xavier Bongibault.
  
  Good day.
  
  Q. Thank you for joining us. So let's get right to it: Do you think life will be gayer without marriage for homosexuals?
  
  A. For homosexuals, I can't say. I think so. There is not a majority of homosexuals who want to be vindicated by marriage. The majority of homosexuals mock the minority who are pushing this law.
  
  Q. Alright, please explain to us, being homosexual yourself, why you find it necessary to criticize the government's role in calling the homosexual marriage law "marriage for all"?
  
  A. Marriage for all exists already in France. We speak of equality before the law. That's equality between individuals, not equality between groups. There is equality in the sense that anyone can get in a male-female couple. There is not equality between couples, but there is equality for individuals.
  
  Q. Let's not get caught in the weeds here. There is the matter of PACS; we might be getting ahead of ourselves. Let's focus -- what bothers you about the bill before us now?
  
  A. What bugs me is the destructuring and dismantling of society. The first echelon of society is the familial echelon. That's where society is built. A child needs to evolve within a familial balance. This bill would suppress that need. A child has a right to a mother and a father. The structuring of society is placed in a bad way.
  
  Q. One must speak of adoption momentarily. Let me stay on the topic of marriage for now. There are some Catholic nations like Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, which had extended marriage to homosexuals. These aren't decadent nations. Their society hasn't been overturned. Well, life is as good in those places as it is here.
  
  A. You want to speak of adoption later, but wait. There are some specifics here. France is one of the only places in the world that links childrearing legally to marriage. In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families. So when we speak of the text of the civil code [of 1793], it says that marriage is based on children and families.
  
  Q. Is the religious aspect important to you? Is this really a struggle over religious convictions for you?
  
  A. Absolutely not. I am atheist. But all religions have their place. This weekend I spent time with Monsignor 23 and I think religions have an enduring place in society, they are part of society. There are those who say that believers do not have the right to speak out, based on their religious convictions, because somehow that's backward. This may shock you, that I'm atheist but fighting for representations of religions, because yes, they have their place in the debate.
  
  Q. Atheist? You are using the same argument as Monsignor 23.
  
  A. Naturally, Friday morning I had the chance to meet with Monsigner Barbaran and there was no problem. I defended him on the subject of the one we were talking about before--I agreed with him totally. I think we have to collaborate with everyone opposed to this law. It's important.
  Q. I have to pose this question to you: Do you militate for homosexuals, as much as you do for UMP (the conservative Sarkozy party)?
  
  A. Militate, insofar as, here I am a homosexual and it's scandalous -- how could you think that? I militate in this way: The LGBT Associations I found deeply homophobic; here's why -- The idea that a homosexual must be for homosexual marriage because he's homosexual, this ideology is an ideology forming a straight line from a well known German who wrote in 1963, that a homosexual cannot reflect politically, except through sexual instinct.
  
  Q. Okay, so let's get to adoption. Is it the format for the child that worries you?
  
  A. Yes, I have seen a study, a very serious one -- the most serious study done so far. It was done by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist. He studied the effects of homosexuality at the University of Texas. It demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.
  Q. I must interject here. Everyone has their own specialists with contradictory findings. That doesn't measure things in a final way yet. People speak about the balance of the child, I have something even further to ask. Are you afraid of sexual abuse?
  
  A. In no way do I have that type of fear, trust me.
  Q. You hear this: There ought not to be gay marriage in France, because there's imbalance in gay marriages, and then there's sexual abuse.
  
  A. No, no, no. I have no homophobic logic like that. I don't know if you are trying to get me into a fight here...
  Q. So are you opposed to contraception, abortion, or divorce?
  
  A. Divorce, no. Absolutely not. You cannot force a child to live in a deteriorating family situation.
  Q. Okay, well, with the text going up to the minister, do you have anything else planned?
  
  A. Yes, we have the mobilization on November 17. We're calling it the Manif For All, and the head spokespeople are me, Frigide Barjot, and Laurence Tcheng of the Left.
  Interviewer: Thank you Xavier, you will be able to see this on video.... I see you are wearing a sweatshirt with a mom, a dad, and two kids. How nice. We think you've made your message quite clear.
• 
  29

  UK House of Commons Vote on Gay Marriage Later Today

  by cofty in

  1. social
  2. current

  the vote could go either way.. only 36% of the british public oppose gay marriage so there is no real political danger to the government.

  david cameron is for it but the cabinet is split.. it will be a test for the tories.

  are they still the reactionary dinosaurs we think they are?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  Amelia,

  You wrote "Surely growing up in an environment where the child is loved and cared for counts for more than anything else."

  Where in the article did you find that the author wasn't loved or cared for by his two mothers?

  He early on refers to "my beloved mother", later he says "I cherish my mother’s memory". Sounds to me that he did grow up in a loving environment. He doesn't seem to refer to his mothers partner with any negativity or ill-feeling. (there seems to be no bitterness that he is trying to get off his chest).

  He states "To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's."

  Sounds to me like he was cared for. Reading between the lines, it sounds like his environment was ok for getting homework done, and for studying. He himself says observers would conclude he was well-raised - sounds like "cared for" to me.
• 
  29

  UK House of Commons Vote on Gay Marriage Later Today

  by cofty in

  1. social
  2. current

  the vote could go either way.. only 36% of the british public oppose gay marriage so there is no real political danger to the government.

  david cameron is for it but the cabinet is split.. it will be a test for the tories.

  are they still the reactionary dinosaurs we think they are?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  Single parenting is very hard and taxing. I admire those who do it and understand the tremendous task that they are trying to fulfill.

  Cofty, you may have seen the following article in your English paper last month entitled "Children in single parent families 'worse behaved'"

  The link is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8064435/Children-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html

  There are many issues surrounding the children raised by single parents. The issue is complex as the families can be single parent families, single but co-habitating parent (non-biological) families, single main parent but with shared parenting with the separated partner.

  A lot more research needs to be done to properly understand the issues and impact of single parent families.

  Interestingly very few governments seem interested in trying to strengthen marriages and sort out the tensions and negative aspects that are occurring.
• 
  29

  UK House of Commons Vote on Gay Marriage Later Today

  by cofty in

  1. social
  2. current

  the vote could go either way.. only 36% of the british public oppose gay marriage so there is no real political danger to the government.

  david cameron is for it but the cabinet is split.. it will be a test for the tories.

  are they still the reactionary dinosaurs we think they are?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  Gay marriage also needs to take into account the issue of the raising of children within the structure of homosexual relationships.

  When viewed in terms of the raising of children the picture becomes very interesting.

  A personal account of being raised by two lesbian mothers is given by an assistant Professor of English at California State University. He raises some serious issues for consideration and discussion.

  I'll post his whole article below, however the link for it is http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

  Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

  by Robert Oscar Lopez
  withinMarriage

  August 6th, 2012

  The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange.

  Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

  After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

  Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.

  Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

  My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

  Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

  I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

  My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people.

  Life is hard when you are strange. Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted. Though I am hard-working and a quick learner, I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.

  In terms of sexuality, gays who grew up in traditional households benefited from at least seeing some kind of functional courtship rituals around them. I had no clue how to make myself attractive to girls. When I stepped outside of my mothers’ trailer, I was immediately tagged as an outcast because of my girlish mannerisms, funny clothes, lisp, and outlandishness. Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend, instead having gone to four proms as a wisecracking sidekick to girls who just wanted someone to chip in for a limousine.

  When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet. Frightened and traumatized by my mother’s death, I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there.

  It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself. I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man. I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or "homocons."

  Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus, in an email dated July 17, 2012. I was not part of his massive survey, but he noticed a comment I’d left on a website about it and took the initiative to begin an email correspondence.

  Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

  Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

  Like my story, these 248 people’s stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

  So why the code of silence from LGBT leaders? I can only speculate from where I’m sitting. I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

  The latest attempt at trying to silence stories (and data) such as mine comes from Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, who gave an interview to Tom Bartlett of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he said—and I quote—that Mark Regnerus’s study was “bullshit.” Bartlett’s article continues:

  Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

  Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

  The problem with Sherkat’s disqualification of Regnerus’s work is a manifold chicken-and-egg conundrum. Though Sherkat uses the term “LGBT” in the same interview with Bartlett, he privileges that L and G and discriminates severely against the B, bisexuals.

  Where do children of LGBT parents come from? If the parents are 100-percent gay or lesbian, then the chances are that the children were conceived through surrogacy or insemination, or else adopted. Those cases are such a tiny percentage of LGBT parents, however, that it would be virtually impossible to find more than a half-dozen in a random sampling of tens of thousands of adults.

  Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting.

  I would posit that children raised by same-sex couples are naturally going to be more curious about and experimental with homosexuality without necessarily being pure of any attraction to the opposite sex. Hence they will more likely fall into the bisexual category, as did I—meaning that the children of LGBT parents, once they are young adults, are likely to be the first ones disqualified by the social scientists who now claim to advocate for their parents.

  Those who are 100-percent gay may view bisexuals with a mix of disgust and envy. Bisexual parents threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up. While some gays see bisexuality as an easier position, the fact is that bisexual parents bear a more painful weight on their shoulders. Unlike homosexuals, we cannot write off our decisions as things forced on us by nature. We have no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents, and live with the guilt, regret, and self-criticism forever.

  Our children do not arrive with clean legal immunity. As a man, though I am bisexual, I do not get to throw away the mother of my child as if she is a used incubator. I had to help my wife through the difficulties of pregnancy and postpartum depression. When she is struggling with discrimination against mothers or women at a sexist workplace, I have to be patient and listen. I must attend to her sexual needs. Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died. I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest . . . forever.

  Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children. Bisexual parents must wrestle with their duties as parents while still contending with the temptations to enter into same-sex relationships. The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is. Rather than threatening, it is a reminder of the burden I carry and a goad to concern myself first and foremost with my children’s needs, not my sexual desires.

  The other chicken-and-egg problem of Sherkat’s dismissal deals with conservative ideology. Many have dismissed my story with four simple words: “But you are conservative.” Yes, I am. How did I get that way? I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions. Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.

  So yes, I am conservative and support Regnerus’s findings. Or is it that Regnerus’s findings revisit the things that made me conservative in the first place? Sherkat must figure that one out.

  Having lived for forty-one years as a strange man, I see it as tragically fitting that the first instinct of experts and gay activists is to exclude my life profile as unfit for any “data sample,” or as Dr. Sherkat calls it, “bullshit.” So the game has gone for at least twenty-five years. For all the talk about LGBT alliances, bisexuality falls by the wayside, thanks to scholars such as Sherkat. For all the chatter about a “queer” movement, queer activists are just as likely to restrict their social circles to professionalized, normal people who know how to throw charming parties, make small talk, and blend in with the Art Deco furniture.

  I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore. Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard; it takes a mental toll, makes it harder to find friends, interferes with professional growth, and sometimes leads one down a sodden path to self-medication in the form of alcoholism, drugs, gambling, antisocial behavior, and irresponsible sex. The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange. We owe them, at the least, a dose of honesty. Thank you, Mark Regnerus, for taking the time to listen.

  Robert Lopez is assistant professor of English at California State University-Northridge.
• 
  81

  The Greatest Show On Earth - A Book Summary In Many Parts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it was a number of years after i left the watchtower that i finally admitted to myself that i had never really investigated evolution.. i thought i was already an expert on the subject despite everything i knew about it coming form a source that was attacking the theory.

  when i began to reserch evolution objectively i was astonished by the breadth an depth of the evidence.

  i have been reading books and articles on the subject for around ten years now and always find it to be fascinating and inspiring.. a couple of years ago i began to write a summary of dawkin's book on the jws forum with the intention of helping any lurking jws who could not dare be seen reading the book for themselves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  Cofty,

  In the book "Implications of Evolution", the evolutionist - Professor Gerald Kerkut (Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southamptom) on page 6 states:

  There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh.

  These are as follows.

  (1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

  (2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

  The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

  (3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

  (4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

  (5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

  (6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

  (7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.

  Now granted that the book is an old one - published in 1960, and granted that you have read Dawkins book - "Greatest Show On Earth", my question is - Does Dawkins address any of these assumption in his book and if so, what is his response to these assumptions? (I am only half way thru chapter 2 at present).

  With the knowledge available at the time, Kerkut concluded on page 150:

  "What conclusions, then, can one come to concerning the validity of the various implications of the theory of evolution? If we go back to our initial assumptions it will be seen that the evidence is still lacking for most of them."

  Kerkut just briefly mentions two theories of evolution:

  1. Special theory of evolution

  2. General theory of evolution

  Again my questions are - Which theory is Dawkins promoting and does he address these two theories?
• 
  16

  Tiktaalik - A Brief Introduction

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as a young pioneer i always relished opportunities to demonstrate my ignorance of evolution.

  my usual mantra was that all fossils were fully formed fish or amphibians or reptiles or mammals with nothing in-between.

  even back in the 80s this was factually incorrect, but following a discovery by neil shubin and his team in 2004 the matter has been put beyond reasonable doubt.. one of the biggest gulfs that life has had to cross was the transition from sea to dry land.. fish have conical shaped heads, reptiles have flat heads.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing
• 
  16

  Tiktaalik - A Brief Introduction

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as a young pioneer i always relished opportunities to demonstrate my ignorance of evolution.

  my usual mantra was that all fossils were fully formed fish or amphibians or reptiles or mammals with nothing in-between.

  even back in the 80s this was factually incorrect, but following a discovery by neil shubin and his team in 2004 the matter has been put beyond reasonable doubt.. one of the biggest gulfs that life has had to cross was the transition from sea to dry land.. fish have conical shaped heads, reptiles have flat heads.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing
• 
  21

  PDF, the Watchtower August 15, 2009

  by possible-san in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  now, in my japanese forum, the watchtower august 15, 2009 (pdf, 32mb) is downloadable.. but only a registrant can access.. http://bb2.atbb.jp/strongwings/viewtopic.php?p=1598#1598.

  it is deleted within about one week.. .

  http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Thing

  A huge thankyou from the land of Oz