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
 Religion
 Religion versus vaccines--sound familiar?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2007 :  23:33:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent


quote:
quote:

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If people want to be guinea pigs, then let them...... As a parent with the responsibility to raise my children into healthy, thinking, moral adults, I will evaluate every risk. My child will have a respect for science, but not a blind faith.


You really have no understanding of medical science do you?


What does medical science have to do with the aboce statement?


Medical science does not work off guinia pigging the public. Chemistry tells us how chemicals interact before we put them together and feed them to our kids.
quote:

Oh boy, the FDA approved it, it must be safe, just like:
Vioxx (sp)
Olestra
aspartame
Splenda
trans-fats.....


That is not what I said. What I said was that vaccines are not the same as drugs which are different chemicals we ingest. We know that the components of the vaccine are safe and know how they interact when combined. I was comparing it to sodas which have the same ingredients but vary slightly between brands and sometimes incorporate different ingredients, but you don't say, "Well until a few years go by and I can be assured that sugar plus Carbon dioxide doesn't produce a dangerous killer product, I'll pass on the soda." You are being very foolish about how chemistry works and how we test the danger of chemicals on the human body. As I said the FDA approves what it deems safe within the testing limits it has. Sometimes this doesn't tell the whole story. Also, I don't think that not taking a new drug for safe measure is a problem. However, creating a fantasy conspiracy about how no drugs can ever be safe because some are not is over generalizing. Vaccines are not like drugs, they are like infecting the body with the components that stimulate the immune response (actually it is exactly that).
quote:

Eh, sexual contact falls under "one's own actions"



So... you think everyone should just never have sex, kinda like Saul of Tarsus? You do realize that adults get the disease and cervical cancer right? You do understand what asymptomatic means right? It means that someone who had sex once with a woman infected then once with another women not infected may have caused her cervical cancer and no one could have known about the danger at anytime during the X years that it happened in. Unless your argument is 'no vaccines only monogamy for life' is the solution to the HPV problem, you have no point over voluntary activity, because hanging out with a kid who has chicken pox is also a choice, one could, after all, become a bubble boy and never get a virus again.

Political Talking Head Says: "Leaving your home is a choice!"

quote:


Apocolypse... Where the hell did you read that? And no shingles won't kill ya, but it will make you wish you were dead.



You said it in your post 4 page 4.

"..wiithout[sic] mass population dispersals due to the effects of global warming, plagues, wars, or planetary catastrophes."

Also, did you miss my discussion on why vaccines do not make you MORE succeptible to viruses later? Anyone who has not had the vaccine has a higher risk of getting shingles if they missed out on it at a kid. If they got the vaccine, it is the same as being exposed.
quote:


Where is your data for 40 years from the first heavey usage of the chicken-pox vaccine? Where is the proof? Can you see the future? That is the problem with science. It demands blind-faith of theory. It assumes A is A, and will be. They demand proof, but expect people to buy there assertions without proof.


I stand by my original assertion that you know little about how science works. It is not faith when you have evidence. The proof is in the pudding [uh] covered immunology book. Vaccines are exposures to a virus. You seem to live in a crazy world were you need to check on the car in the drive way every minute of everyday in order to make sure it is there, even if the car was bolted to concrete and had no engine. I suggest you learn something before continuing to debate a subject you obviously do not understand, and no ingnorance is not an excuse to do anything, especially when it comes to child rearing.
quote:

No shit that the exposure to the chicken pox, or to the vaccine lessend the chance of chicken pox in adult life.

That is how people get shingles... Duh!
quote:

Does the chicken pox vaccine decrease the chance down to the level of an actual case of the chicken pox? If not, is a booster going to be available 40 years down the road?


Yes and yes.
quote:

The exposed have a better chance of not having a problem down the road.



Proof? Evidence? You don't appear to have a grasp on the subject, but even if you are right then you are advocating mandatory exposure of everyone to chicken pox in order to prevent future cases of shingles, oh wait, that is what the manditory vaccination would do.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2007 :  23:44:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent

I don't know how to do it, but it needs to be done. Getting it done is what we pay the government to do. The paraylisis on issues deemed "dificult" is ludicrous.

I am not PC. There is nothing wrong with penal colonies and indentured servitude. There is nothing stopping states from quaranrining. Penal colonies are simple and cheap. Toss them there, drop some food. Not to much difirent then a prison, but a lot cheaper. The states have the power to do any of it.

Quarantine for TB is a publice health issue, especially when the people are not taking the treatment. Drunk driving is a criminal issue.

I am not scared of AIDS (for myself). I do not participate in at risk-behavior. It doesn't spread easily even with blood to blood contact (needle-stick to the finger). TB... well that's a bit difirent. Dosen't bother me as much as I am a born-again travel agent and not a paramedic running around in cesspools. Hepatitis always bothered me, because that you can catch pretty easily.

I am not in favor of shipping out everyone who looks or acts funny, is sick, etc. I think our prisons are full of people who do not belong there. However, violent people who prey on society, or have little regard for the safety of scoiety do not belong in society, and do not deserve socieites support. Society has enough problems to take care of other then supporting these folks.

The point I was trying to make no one is looking to the big problems (other then the state telling me what is best for my children without showing me the long-term proof that their option is better then ours.)

10 years from now I may be a HPV advocate, right now I am skeptical.

Peace
Joe




So you are one of those guys that says, "We need to do this, this, this, this thing and this craazy idea that will cost a billion billion dollars, now government, get it done and don't raise my taxes."

Most of your assertions are crazy and immoral, have no reasoning to assert effectiveness, or cost so much money for so little pay off. So you are therefore, a talking head, no different to me then a raving old man telling 'in my day' stories as far as usefulness goes.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2007 :  23:45:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis

No. Dictator Joe will have already eliminated the court system, remember?
Not if he's true to his "Original Intent" moniker, in which the courts exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Unless I read that wrong.



Actually, one of his crazy ideas was to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, and I am all but certain he will consider such lawsuits frivolous and expensive. That was what I was refering to, 'the peoples court'.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2007 :  21:42:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis

quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent


quote:
quote:

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If people want to be guinea pigs, then let them...... As a parent with the responsibility to raise my children into healthy, thinking, moral adults, I will evaluate every risk. My child will have a respect for science, but not a blind faith.


You really have no understanding of medical science do you?


What does medical science have to do with the aboce statement?


Medical science does not work off guinia pigging the public. Chemistry tells us how chemicals interact before we put them together and feed them to our kids.
quote:

Oh boy, the FDA approved it, it must be safe, just like:
Vioxx (sp)
Olestra
aspartame
Splenda
trans-fats.....


That is not what I said. What I said was that vaccines are not the same as drugs which are different chemicals we ingest. We know that the components of the vaccine are safe and know how they interact when combined. I was comparing it to sodas which have the same ingredients but vary slightly between brands and sometimes incorporate different ingredients, but you don't say, "Well until a few years go by and I can be assured that sugar plus Carbon dioxide doesn't produce a dangerous killer product, I'll pass on the soda." You are being very foolish about how chemistry works and how we test the danger of chemicals on the human body. As I said the FDA approves what it deems safe within the testing limits it has. Sometimes this doesn't tell the whole story. Also, I don't think that not taking a new drug for safe measure is a problem. However, creating a fantasy conspiracy about how no drugs can ever be safe because some are not is over generalizing. Vaccines are not like drugs, they are like infecting the body with the components that stimulate the immune response (actually it is exactly that).
quote:

Eh, sexual contact falls under "one's own actions"



So... you think everyone should just never have sex, kinda like Saul of Tarsus? You do realize that adults get the disease and cervical cancer right? You do understand what asymptomatic means right? It means that someone who had sex once with a woman infected then once with another women not infected may have caused her cervical cancer and no one could have known about the danger at anytime during the X years that it happened in. Unless your argument is 'no vaccines only monogamy for life' is the solution to the HPV problem, you have no point over voluntary activity, because hanging out with a kid who has chicken pox is also a choice, one could, after all, become a bubble boy and never get a virus again.

Political Talking Head Says: "Leaving your home is a choice!"

quote:


Apocolypse... Where the hell did you read that? And no shingles won't kill ya, but it will make you wish you were dead.



You said it in your post 4 page 4.

"..wiithout[sic] mass population dispersals due to the effects of global warming, plagues, wars, or planetary catastrophes."

Also, did you miss my discussion on why vaccines do not make you MORE succeptible to viruses later? Anyone who has not had the vaccine has a higher risk of getting shingles if they missed out on it at a kid. If they got the vaccine, it is the same as being exposed.
quote:


Where is your data for 40 years from the first heavey usage of the chicken-pox vaccine? Where is the proof? Can you see the future? That is the problem with science. It demands blind-faith of theory. It assumes A is A, and will be. They demand proof, but expect people to buy there assertions without proof.


I stand by my original assertion that you know little about how science works. It is not faith when you have evidence. The proof is in the pudding [uh] covered immunology book. Vaccines are exposures to a virus. You seem to live in a crazy world were you need to check on the car in the drive way every minute of everyday in order to make sure it is there, even if the car was bolted to concrete and had no engine. I suggest you learn something before continuing to debate a subject you obviously do not understand, and no ingnorance is not an excuse to do anything, especially when it comes to child rearing.
quote:

No shit that the exposure to the chicken pox, or to the vaccine lessend the chance of chicken pox in adult life.

That is how people get shingles... Duh!
quote:

Does the chicken pox vaccine decrease the chance down to the level of an actual case of the chicken pox? If not, is a booster going to be available 40 years down the road?


Yes and yes.
quote:

The exposed have a better chance of not having a problem down the road.



Proof? Evidence? You don't appear to have a grasp on the subject, but even if you are right then you are advocating mandatory exposure of everyone to chicken pox in order to prevent future cases of shingles, oh wait, that is what the manditory vaccination would do.



Man, just as bad as the blind-faith-in-religion, is the blind-faith-in-science.

You tell me you are right because it is science, and here are the facts. I have heard that before from both the government and private industry.

You tell me your way is better because it will lead to something better, and while it may appear to do so, it may be just smoke and mirrors.

Then, becuase you cannot convince me otherwise, ou resort to personal attacks. You seem to think what you want and what you think is more important then what others think. You are a delusional utopianist preying at the alter of science, blinded by looking at too many statistcs to support your claims.

You claim that we
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2007 :  21:56:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis

quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent

I don't know how to do it, but it needs to be done. Getting it done is what we pay the government to do. The paraylisis on issues deemed "dificult" is ludicrous.

I am not PC. There is nothing wrong with penal colonies and indentured servitude. There is nothing stopping states from quaranrining. Penal colonies are simple and cheap. Toss them there, drop some food. Not to much difirent then a prison, but a lot cheaper. The states have the power to do any of it.

Quarantine for TB is a publice health issue, especially when the people are not taking the treatment. Drunk driving is a criminal issue.

I am not scared of AIDS (for myself). I do not participate in at risk-behavior. It doesn't spread easily even with blood to blood contact (needle-stick to the finger). TB... well that's a bit difirent. Dosen't bother me as much as I am a born-again travel agent and not a paramedic running around in cesspools. Hepatitis always bothered me, because that you can catch pretty easily.

I am not in favor of shipping out everyone who looks or acts funny, is sick, etc. I think our prisons are full of people who do not belong there. However, violent people who prey on society, or have little regard for the safety of scoiety do not belong in society, and do not deserve socieites support. Society has enough problems to take care of other then supporting these folks.

The point I was trying to make no one is looking to the big problems (other then the state telling me what is best for my children without showing me the long-term proof that their option is better then ours.)

10 years from now I may be a HPV advocate, right now I am skeptical.

Peace
Joe




So you are one of those guys that says, "We need to do this, this, this, this thing and this craazy idea that will cost a billion billion dollars, now government, get it done and don't raise my taxes."

Most of your assertions are crazy and immoral, have no reasoning to assert effectiveness, or cost so much money for so little pay off. So you are therefore, a talking head, no different to me then a raving old man telling 'in my day' stories as far as usefulness goes.


Ah, missed this little dig....

So, we are back to you preaching morality. In my opinion we have limited resources to spread to the population. Noone who preys on society or shows callous disregard for society deserves the support of that society. In my opinion, if someone cannot control their and endangers people, they do not belong in society to endanger them.

It is impossible to protect everyone, but you would see to the protection of the rights of a menace to society over the life of your child, mother, father, or wife to not be killed or injured by them.

I will happily see my taxes raised to make sure that Mrs. Smith, who's only crime was to marry someone who died to young and needs food, clothing, and shelter then to provide anything to feed, cloth, or shelter the asshole who killed her husband.

Since we are stereotyping, you probably think that everyone deserves a second chance to rape, pillage, and murder.....

Bite me,
Joe
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  02:44:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
There is no "blind faith" in science, OI. The scientific process provides repeatable peer reviewed evidence which supports conclusions. You see it, measure it, test it, and it works again and again. You know new evidence can change your conclusion. You act on the best evidence you have at the time. Nothing blind about it.


Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  07:42:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
It is blind when you "know as fact" that A is A and will always be A. The data says this is what it is, and therfore it will continue to always be so. In the vast majority of cases it s most likely to be so, but it is still theory. It demands that conditions remain the same, which they do not always do.

CLimate changes, evolution occurs. The wrong people get the jobs that they may or not be qualified for, and if they are qualified it dosen't mean they are capable.

When the long-term implications of something cannot be known, then one has to use their head and not just have blind-faith. I call it blind, but maybe it should be called assumption.

Peace
Joe
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  11:22:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Eh, sexual contact falls under "one's own actions"
I thought we had already established that sexual contact is not always voluntary.
And then, you are also under-estimating peer pressure, a very powerful force indeed.



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

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  13:25:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
O.I. said:
quote:
Oh boy, the FDA approved it, it must be safe, just like:
Vioxx (sp)
Olestra
aspartame
Splenda
trans-fats.....



Yeah, lets make two lists. In the first list you put all the drugs the FDA has approved and later found out to be dangerous.

In the second list you put all the drugs the FDA has approved and are safe to use.



Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  13:38:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
O.I. said:
quote:
Close. The courts are not there to protect the minority, but everyone regardless of status, under the tenents of justice.


The "original intent" of our entire system of government was to protect the minority from the majority. Go read some Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and John Locke.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  13:56:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
And in a third list, put all the drugs that the pharmceutical companies have started working on, but dropped prior to FDA approval. For every drug approved by the FDA, there will be about 6,000 drugs which didn't get to the pharmacists' shelves because the drug researchers themselves found them to be ineffective and/or dangerous.

And since when is Aspartame a health risk? Or Olestra or Splenda? I'd also like to see the public records of trans fats being "approved" by the FDA. If you're going to claim that something that was never approved by the FDA is dangerous and imply the FDA is at fault, at least try to stick Fen-Phen in the list. Only Vioxx was a good example of what you were trying to show, OI, and even that has its drawbacks as an illustration, since both the FDA and Health Canada have suggested that Vioxx be returned to the market - it's Merck that doesn't want to sell it anymore.

Well, at least you didn't try to blame the FDA for Thalidomide...

- 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

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  20:31:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

And in a third list, put all the drugs that the pharmceutical companies have started working on, but dropped prior to FDA approval. For every drug approved by the FDA, there will be about 6,000 drugs which didn't get to the pharmacists' shelves because the drug researchers themselves found them to be ineffective and/or dangerous.

And since when is Aspartame a health risk? Or Olestra or Splenda? I'd also like to see the public records of trans fats being "approved" by the FDA. If you're going to claim that something that was never approved by the FDA is dangerous and imply the FDA is at fault, at least try to stick Fen-Phen in the list. Only Vioxx was a good example of what you were trying to show, OI, and even that has its drawbacks as an illustration, since both the FDA and Health Canada have suggested that Vioxx be returned to the market - it's Merck that doesn't want to sell it anymore.

Well, at least you didn't try to blame the FDA for Thalidomide...



Some people have bad reactions to phenolaniline(sp). There is a warning on each and every package warning phenoleucurics(sp) that the product contains aspertame. This is a very uncommon condition, so the original tests to make sure the chemical was safe for human consumption did not uncover this. When the condition presented and further evidence came forth, the FDA required, and the companies complied with, the appropriate labeling.

Still, expecting the FDA to have a perfect track record is logically invalid. The expectation is that for a great majority of the population FDA approved food additaves and drugs will be safe.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  20:54:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Eh, sexual contact falls under "one's own actions"
I thought we had already established that sexual contact is not always voluntary.
And then, you are also under-estimating peer pressure, a very powerful force indeed.






LOL. The quote was not requoted in the proper ontext, and the response from me was a bit short and exclusive of that fact.

quote:
quote:
quote:

This is not small-pox. This is a virus that is spread mostly thorugh one's own actions.



No. It is spread by sexual contact and mostly has no noticable symptoms. A person can contract it and never know, then spread in 15 years later to another partner. Small-pox could be contained far more easily actually.




Eh, sexual contact falls under "one's own actions"




Peer-pressure....... I am not looking forward to that. I am really hoping my children are leaders, not followers, which will help. It sure would have helped me. Beyond that, I am scared to death of it all.

Peace
Joe

Peace
Joe
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  21:04:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dude

O.I. said:
quote:
Oh boy, the FDA approved it, it must be safe, just like:
Vioxx (sp)
Olestra
aspartame
Splenda
trans-fats.....



Yeah, lets make two lists. In the first list you put all the drugs the FDA has approved and later found out to be dangerous.

In the second list you put all the drugs the FDA has approved and are safe to use.




I was not pointing out that the FDA always did the wrong thing. And it actually has many uses and does a good job for the most part. However, blind faith in a governmental organization that is headed by a political appointee that has an obligation to the appointer is just bad business. I am skeptical of anything they have to say.

Peace
Joe
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2007 :  21:20:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dude

O.I. said:
quote:
Close. The courts are not there to protect the minority, but everyone regardless of status, under the tenents of justice.


The "original intent" of our entire system of government was to protect the minority from the majority. Go read some Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and John Locke.



Actually, the purpose of our government WAS ".... to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...."

The purpose was not a huge Federal Government, the Costitution was to protect the states and the citizens of the states by not telling the Federal Government what it couldn't do, but explicitly laying out what it could do.

It has all become so compketely ludicrous.

The courts are the justice arm of it. Justice is to be blind. Majority/minority whichever.....

Peace
Joe
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 0.41 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000