Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Which came first?: Answer at last!
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2006 :  20:09:54  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
In an article from CNN.com, the most classic of age-old debates has, it is claimed, been settled:
quote:
Chicken and egg debate unscrambled
Egg came first, 'eggsperts' agree


Friday, May 26, 2006; Posted: 7:33 a.m. EDT (11:33 GMT)

LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

. . .


My opinion is that the logic seems perfectly sound. I also think this study included an unusually practical use of a philosopher, and an unsually impractical use of a chicken farmer.

Your opinions?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/26/2006 20:48:03

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2006 :  21:28:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
Hold on there, HalfMooner, not so fast! The jury is still out on this one. Back in November, 2005, we discussed this issue at some length in this thread, The Chicken or the Egg?, and came to a variety of conclusions.

There was some consensus on the notion that the first genuine chicken must have started its life as an egg, of course, but the particular egg in question did not come from a chicken. So the question still remains as to whether an egg is that of the animal which it contains, or of the animal from which it came. In other words, the egg from which the first chicken emerged came before that chicken, but was it a chicken egg?
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2006 :  21:55:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message
quote:
The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

Their assumption is that "egg-specific" genes were actually switched on in their first egg. However, what if a proto-egg early on in development got a DNA mutation (creating "a first egg gene") that was never expressed but nevertheless transmitted to it's chicken that then laid an egg that DID express this mutant gene. Then we have the situation where the proto-egg (having the "first egg gene" but not expressing it) gives rise to a chicken (that has the "first egg gene") that then lays the first egg (that expresses the “first egg gene”). The proto-egg, even though it in its DNA has the "first egg gene" is nevertheless still a proto-egg. The chicken has the same DNA as both the proto-egg it came from as in the "real egg" it lays. In this situation, the chicken came before the egg.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2006 :  22:13:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
Yeah, it really comes down to whether or not you accept this argument (from the article):
quote:
"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
The goose that laid the golden egg definitely laid eggs that were gold and not regular old goose eggs, even though itself was only a regular goose, so I'm going to have to agree with their logic here. Anyone know wtf laid Humpty Dumpty?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/26/2006 22:14:29
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  01:17:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
In another writing, as I recall, I put forth the only reasonable and logical answer as to which came first. As is so often the case, the simplest answer is the best one:

"Who cares; pass the Tabasco..."





Broody hen incubating her clutch.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  14:17:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
Every time a cell division occurs, we have the potential of a mutation in the copying process. I don't recall the number believed to be copying-error-rate. Last time I think I heard somthing about one-in-a-billion basepairs.

That means that a proto-hen lays a proto egg, in which a proto-zygote starts to divide.
Early in that division the mutation occurs that makes a fourth of (or an eighth, or a sixteenth) of the cells in the proto-chicken to carry the True Chicken DNA.
At one point or another, the proto-chickens "sex-cell" (that carries the mutation) enters meiosis to become the new True Egg.

Hence the EGG is the first true chicken-egg.

Thus speaketh Dr. Mabuse.
Please tell me if this sounds plausible...

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  14:32:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
At risk of getting into a fight, I will now state that I am definitely an egg man. An egg man and an agnostic. Let the war begin.

Go eggs! Go ags!


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  14:35:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Every time a cell division occurs, we have the potential of a mutation in the copying process. I don't recall the number believed to be copying-error-rate. Last time I think I heard something about one-in-a-billion basepairs.

That means that a proto-hen lays a proto egg, in which a proto-zygote starts to divide.
Early in that division the mutation occurs that makes a fourth of (or an eighth, or a sixteenth) of the cells in the proto-chicken to carry the True Chicken DNA.
At one point or another, the proto-chickens "sex-cell" (that carries the mutation) enters meiosis to become the new True Egg.

Hence the EGG is the first true chicken-egg.

Thus speaketh Dr. Mabuse.
Please tell me if this sounds plausible...





Like all the mutations when they tried to mutate the fruit fly's in millions of generations. It was always still a fruit fly, the mutations were naturally weeded out, and it continued to be a fruit fly, much to Dr. Hyde bemusement.

The fact of the matter is, there is exactly no reason to evolve into an egg. Unless by design, it serves no purpose in the evolutionary process you guys exault.

You have no idea when the first egg showed up, you also have eggs fossilized since the bigging of your evolutionary millions of years you need for evolution. In other words since fossils have existed, eggs have been in it. From the Dinobots, to the, imperfect as you say, humans, whom you all could have designed better.

That fact of the matter is, that eggs have existed since time began, or as you all say, the evolution to develop the egg happened to fast to be noticed in the evolutionary record. In other words, you don't know.

Don't knowing something casts doubt on the whole process.

By law of emminate complexity, God wins, or Einstein's higher power, or the Lord of Black Matter.

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Jews, aswell as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, who was born a saviour in their midst.

I have eye witness accounts of my beliefs, you have speculation and assumptions, nothing time tested, or observed.

The beauty of free will is an awesome thing!!!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1202_041202_pterosaurs_egg.html

Proof of fossilized eggs of dinasours, which are 121 million years old, is scientists theory. What came first, the dinasour, or the egg?

What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Edited by - verlch on 05/27/2006 14:39:18
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  15:28:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Every time a cell division occurs, we have the potential of a mutation in the copying process. I don't recall the number believed to be copying-error-rate. Last time I think I heard something about one-in-a-billion basepairs.

That means that a proto-hen lays a proto egg, in which a proto-zygote starts to divide.
Early in that division the mutation occurs that makes a fourth of (or an eighth, or a sixteenth) of the cells in the proto-chicken to carry the True Chicken DNA.
At one point or another, the proto-chickens "sex-cell" (that carries the mutation) enters meiosis to become the new True Egg.

Hence the EGG is the first true chicken-egg.

Thus speaketh Dr. Mabuse.
Please tell me if this sounds plausible...



Like all the mutations when they tried to mutate the fruit fly's in millions of generations.

False. Fruit-flies has bever been breeded for millions of generations in order to test the theory of evolution.
quote:
It was always still a fruit fly, the mutations were naturally weeded out, and it continued to be a fruit fly, much to Dr. Hyde bemusement.
Who is Dr. Hyde? References please...
quote:
The fact of the matter is, there is exactly no reason to evolve into an egg.
"Reason" has nothing to do with it, how many times do we have to tell you that? In evolutionary biology, there are benefits. Eggs were beneficial for protecting the developing organism.

quote:
Unless by design, it serves no purpose in the evolutionary process you guys exault.

Liar.

quote:
That fact of the matter is, that eggs have existed since time began,
Not according to the Bible. Don't you read the Bible, Verlch?

quote:
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Jews, aswell as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, who was born a saviour in their midst.

quote:

Proof of fossilized eggs of dinasours, which are 121 million years old, is scientists theory. What came first, the dinasour, or the egg?

The same answer applies: The Egg.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  17:39:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Damn, V!

How many times are we going have to plow through this tedious shit?

Fossil invertebrate eggs date clear back to the Precambrian. In another thread, I advised you to look up Stromatolites and Cyanobacteria. Obviously, you failed to do so. If you had, you would not have made such ridiculous statements.

So now, I'm gonna come right out and demand an answer: If you know so fucking much about the fossil record, why is it that no fossils of anything else, including egg-laying organisms and even plants, are found in association with stromatolites?

And don't hand me a pile o' crap about God's pulling a flim-flam and making the fossils look like they're 3.5 billion years old! I don't think even Hovind believes that turkey.

And if you don't agree with that dating, then explain in detail exactly why and how your Biblical conjecture is superior to radiometric dating.

Now, get off'n your ass and do some research beyond the yarns of semi-literate shepherds and the blitherings of ancient madmen.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  19:48:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

By law of emminate complexity...
What "law" is that?
quote:
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Jews, aswell as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, who was born a saviour in their midst.
Yeah, but apparently you feel free to ignore your God's laws:
quote:
...you have speculation and assumptions, nothing time tested, or observed.
You know that to be not true, and so you are bearing false witness against your neighbors, verlch.
quote:
The beauty of free will is an awesome thing!!!!
And you're using it to go to hell. How nice.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  20:30:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
By the way, verlch, your rather lengthy signature includes the following personally offensive phrase: "There are no atheists in foxholes." As Memorial Day approaches, and as a war veteran, I ask you, how do you know this? Were you ever in a war, or did you just hear this phrase somewhere, and are parroting it? Do you even care that it's an obvious lie?

My own experience is that your statement is as big a lie as the following phrase: "There are no Christians in gay circle-jerks."


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/27/2006 20:32:24
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  20:55:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

By the way, verlch, your rather lengthy signature includes the following personally offensive phrase: "There are no atheists in foxholes." As Memorial Day approaches, and as a war veteran, I ask you, how do you know this? Were you ever in a war, or did you just hear this phrase somewhere, and are parroting it? Do you even care that it's an obvious lie?

My own experience is that your statement is as big a lie as the following phrase: "There are no Christians in gay circle-jerks."





Have you seen the photos of the US Army men baptizing themselves in pools of water for kids?

The fact of the matter is, when death is staring you in the eyeballs, you tend to do some praying. I know I would and I do.

Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  21:22:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

Damn, V!

How many times are we going have to plow through this tedious shit?

Fossil invertebrate eggs date clear back to the Precambrian. In another thread, I advised you to look up Stromatolites and Cyanobacteria. Obviously, you failed to do so. If you had, you would not have made such ridiculous statements.

So now, I'm gonna come right out and demand an answer: If you know so fucking much about the fossil record, why is it that no fossils of anything else, including egg-laying organisms and even plants, are found in association with stromatolites?

And don't hand me a pile o' crap about God's pulling a flim-flam and making the fossils look like they're 3.5 billion years old! I don't think even Hovind believes that turkey.

And if you don't agree with that dating, then explain in detail exactly why and how your Biblical conjecture is superior to radiometric dating.

Now, get off'n your ass and do some research beyond the yarns of semi-literate shepherds and the blitherings of ancient madmen.







This whole egg thing is a evolutionary problem for you guys, I don't care how much spin you place on it.

The egg is external, in its own enviroment, until it hatches. There is nothing enviromental to effect it to develope the egg out side of the egg, for what need would that serve? How is the enviroment going to effect it, inside the egg, to make it evolve? It can't. The egg develps inside the mother.

Why don't cats have eggs? Or women for that matter. Its an evloutionary nightmare for eggs to be in the realm of reality.

All of creation has happened by accident, you say. This is obviously by design. How then would one exist, without being born in an egg?

You guys overlook the complexity of everything, fine, do so, but this smacks of a large scale cover-up.

There would be no reason to have babies like humans, and then evolve an egg, none.

Too many questions and no one to answer them.

The "Great Dying" sounds alot like the "Great Flood."

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050414_mass_extinction.html


What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  21:37:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
verlch evaded:
quote:
Have you seen the photos of the US Army men baptizing themselves in pools of water for kids?

The fact of the matter is, when death is staring you in the eyeballs, you tend to do some praying. I know I would and I do.

No, I don't think so, whatever that sentence meant. What would a photo have to do with whether there are any atheists in foxholes? You have meantime refused to answer about whether you are a veteran yourself, though you made a lying statement about something which almost nobody except a vet would have direct knowledge.

Please do me a favor in respectful consideration of the thousands of atheists and their buddies who have died in foxholes for your right to lie your ignorant stay-safe-at-home ass off about them: Shut the fuck up until after Memorial Day!


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2006 :  22:43:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

This whole egg thing is a evolutionary problem for you guys, I don't care how much spin you place on it.
I don't care how many times you repeat this falsehood, the "egg thing" isn't a problem for evolutionary theory.
quote:
The egg is external, in its own enviroment, until it hatches.
False.
quote:
There is nothing enviromental to effect it to develope the egg out side of the egg...
False.
quote:
...for what need would that serve?
Evolution doesn't serve "needs."
quote:
How is the enviroment going to effect it, inside the egg, to make it evolve?
All sorts of ways.
quote:
It can't.
False.
quote:
The egg develps inside the mother.
True, but so what?
quote:
Why don't cats have eggs? Or women for that matter.
Because an eggshell would interfere with the function of the placenta.
quote:
Its an evloutionary nightmare for eggs to be in the realm of reality.
No matter how many times you say that, it won't become true.
quote:
All of creation has happened by accident, you say.
Another lie for Jesus! Can I get an amen?
quote:
This is obviously by design.
Indeed, natural selection designs many things.
quote:
How then would one exist, without being born in an egg?
Since you exist, why don't you tell us?
quote:
You guys overlook the complexity of everything, fine, do so...
No, actually, it's quite the opposite: you can't stand how complex biology is, and so attempt to simplify it down to "God works in mysterious ways." It's pathetic, verlch, to see your abhorence of anything complicated, be it evolution or interpersonal relationships or terrorist attacks.
quote:
...but this smacks of a large scale cover-up.
A cover-up of what?
quote:
There would be no reason to have babies like humans, and then evolve an egg, none.
Ah, then you agree with evolution, since having babies like humans happened after eggs, not before.
quote:
Too many questions and no one to answer them.
The answers are out there, you just refuse to see them even when they are provided for you.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.69 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000