Can you explain dinosaurs, ancient cultures and ice age creatures? - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-26-2005, 12:17 AM Thread Starter
Cummins > Powerstroke
 
8mpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: id rather be cummin than strokin
Posts: 19,068
Can you explain dinosaurs, ancient cultures and ice age creatures?

Well, after a little debate in school about creationism vs. evolution there were some unanswered questions... I figure the would be a good debate. The whole thing that started this debate in class was a video of ancient Mayan civilizations and the excavation of their temples. These cultures are estimated to be in existance all the way back in 500 B.C. which of course stands Before Christ. If this is true, how can creationism explain dinosaurs, ancient civilizations and ice age creatures?

2006 Dodge Ram Megacab Cummins
1969 Mustang Coupe
1969 Mustang Mach1
1969 Chevy C10
1966 Mustang Coupe
8mpg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-26-2005, 07:21 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
None of us can really answer the question since we obviously weren't there, but I keep an open mind about people's ideas since they actually did exist.

I like this article, but like I said, who knows.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rese..._the_Bible.pdf

Dinosaurs have been mentioned in the Bible, however. Psalm 91:13, Jeremiah 51:34, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 43:20, Genesis 1:21, Isaiah 51:9, Ezekiel 32:2, Job 40:15...

And what the heck is a Leviathan that's mentioned in Job 41?!?!

How about Unicorns like mentioned in Psalm 92:10 and Job 39:9?

I'm sure there's a bunch more, but there will be others chiming in as well.
Denny is offline  
post #3 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-26-2005, 07:38 PM
Saved by Grace
 
72Comet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 870
The bible talks about 3 earth ages. The pre-flood age, post flood age and after Christs return when God's kingdom will be set-up on earth. Evolutionists are always caught up on the time line factor. Creationist understand that God works on a spiritual time line not natural. The bible says what is one day for God is a thousand years to us. I believe that is also saying what is ten thousand years to us could be 200 million years to God. The bible doesn't give an exact mathmatical answer, just that more will be reveled and those who believe will see the truth. I think that the evolutionist always stick there foot in there mouth eventualy and prove the bible to be right.

I'm a man. I can change, if I have to, I guess.
72Comet is offline  
 
post #4 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-26-2005, 09:26 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by 72Comet
The bible says what is one day for God is a thousand years to us. I believe that is also saying what is ten thousand years to us could be 200 million years to God.
I have already debunked this theory months ago. 7-24-04 to be exact in the "Left Behind" thread.

Quote:
Peter 3:8 is one of the most miss quoted verses in the bible. For it goes on to say "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

This is saying nothing about time frames here on earth. This has to do with God not being bound by time whereas we always think God is taking His own time when it comes to us and answering our prayers. While we are impatient with God, He is always patient when it comes to us. So while it may seem like a 1000 years to us (or days or weeks), it is only a speck in time when it comes to eternity.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #5 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-27-2005, 09:47 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,759
www.dinodoctor.com
or what ever the Dr. Hovind site is, most of his stuff is close to dead on.
360 Notch is offline  
post #6 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-28-2005, 06:18 AM
Saved by Grace
 
72Comet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 870
[QUOTE=MoonDog]I have already debunked this theory months ago. 7-24-04 to be exact in the "Left Behind" thread.

No need to debunk anything, we are in agreement you just explained it better than I. My theory on eterntity is that it's not a really long time but it is the absence of time. God is not concerned with time as we see it. Therefore the evolutionists are confusing thenselves with trying to carbon date things, which has been found to be inacurate way of testing anyway.

I'm a man. I can change, if I have to, I guess.
72Comet is offline  
post #7 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-28-2005, 10:29 AM
Hood Approved.
 
CarrieNC17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gasoline Dreams
Posts: 3,359
Dinosaurs were God's test run.
CarrieNC17 is offline  
post #8 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-28-2005, 11:32 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 256
Quote:
These cultures are estimated to be in existance all the way back in 500 B.C. which of course stands Before Christ. If this is true, how can creationism explain dinosaurs, ancient civilizations and ice age creatures?
I don't see the conflict...

Quote:
Dinosaurs were God's test run.
I do hope you're just joking.
JKDGabe is offline  
post #9 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-28-2005, 12:05 PM
Hood Approved.
 
CarrieNC17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gasoline Dreams
Posts: 3,359
Hey to each his own! Yes I'm joking.
CarrieNC17 is offline  
post #10 of 69 (permalink) Old 02-28-2005, 01:02 PM
.........................
 
bpawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by 72Comet
The bible says what is one day for God is a thousand years to us.
Good point. thats always the first thing that I think of anytime there is a conversation about anything like this.
bpawl is offline  
post #11 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-01-2005, 10:29 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East of Dallas
Posts: 132
There is no timeline for God. He sees everything at once.

Lisa T.

2007 Red Kawasaki Ninja 250

2002 Red Z28, t-tops, 6 speed (SOLD)
Mods: Lid and Holley Air Filter, 4.10 Gears, Y-Pipe, Magna Flow Exhaust, bypass pipes, ported TB, ET Streets
Best times:
12.272 in 1/4 @ 113.87 mph (1/16/05)
7.919 in 1/8 @ 88.52 mph (1/16/05)


<><
lisaz28 is offline  
post #12 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-01-2005, 07:42 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 72Comet
The bible says what is one day for God is a thousand years to us. I believe that is also saying what is ten thousand years to us could be 200 million years to God. The bible doesn't give an exact mathmatical answer, just that more will be reveled and those who believe will see the truth.
I feel the same thing. In Genesis

Quote:
Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Who recorded that day, except for God? How long is a day to god?
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #13 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-02-2005, 08:55 AM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
I does not matter how long a day is to God, He lives outside of time. He told Moses to write down the creatin event. God said that the morning and the evening was the first day, sounds like a literal 24 hour period to me.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #14 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-09-2005, 08:50 PM
you wanna run?
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arlington
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360 notch for ur LS1
www.dinodoctor.com
or what ever the Dr. Hovind site is, most of his stuff is close to dead on.
dude it is www.drdino.com

and by the way I have all his downloadable seminars, and they are very lenghthy, and very interesting. I have watched a conciderable amount, but you need about 15-20 hours of watching time at lousy quality.
A lot of what he says is based on the flood, and it is all biblical.

Formerly on the Submarine USS Maryland SSBN 738G
Phillip is offline  
post #15 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-10-2005, 06:16 AM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip
dude it is www.drdino.com

and by the way I have all his downloadable seminars, and they are very lenghthy, and very interesting. I have watched a conciderable amount, but you need about 15-20 hours of watching time at lousy quality.
A lot of what he says is based on the flood, and it is all biblical.
I looked at his Longevity Chart and it looks very similar to the one I created about 7 years ago.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #16 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 10:30 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dallas,Texas
Posts: 906
Dont Forget

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mpg
These cultures are estimated to be in existance all the way back in 500 B.C. which of course stands Before Christ. If this is true, how can creationism explain dinosaurs, ancient civilizations and ice age creatures?

Lets not forget "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was God. He was with God in the begining."
SVT93Style is offline  
post #17 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 10:46 AM
Racist....that means you!
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,645
Explain the Nazca plains.............that is some really weird stuff.
Jester is offline  
post #18 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 11:01 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
God spoke to us in language we can understand using terms we understand, so 1 day was 1 day!! 1 day is like a 1000 yrs is just to show he has no timeline.
Dinosaurs existed after the creation.

Evolutionists lose the argument on this 1 fact alone:

NO FOSSIL has EVER been found of a species in transition to another species!! Of the MILLIONS found not one!!!

There are 2 types of evolution Micro and Macro. Micro has been and this is what was observed by Darwin in the Gallopogus islands,evolution of a species according to environment. Macro, the evolution of 1 species to another has NEVER been observed and has NO fossil record.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #19 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 04:41 PM
you wanna run?
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arlington
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
God spoke to us in language we can understand using terms we understand, so 1 day was 1 day!! 1 day is like a 1000 yrs is just to show he has no timeline.
Dinosaurs existed after the creation.

Evolutionists lose the argument on this 1 fact alone:

NO FOSSIL has EVER been found of a species in transition to another species!! Of the MILLIONS found not one!!!

There are 2 types of evolution Micro and Macro. Micro has been and this is what was observed by Darwin in the Gallopogus islands,evolution of a species according to environment. Macro, the evolution of 1 species to another has NEVER been observed and has NO fossil record.
come on now, are you saying that a fish doesn't have dogs as offspring, and my great great... great grandpa is not a monkey?? That is going to be a hard sell for me!!

Formerly on the Submarine USS Maryland SSBN 738G
Phillip is offline  
post #20 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 06:48 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
Evolutionists lose the argument on this 1 fact alone:

NO FOSSIL has EVER been found of a species in transition to another species!! Of the MILLIONS found not one!!!
Where do I start...

Where transitional fossils records would you like to start with?

Not to mention the very definition of evolution means that every fossil is a transitional fossil.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #21 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 07:16 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Where do I start...

Where transitional fossils records would you like to start with?

Not to mention the very definition of evolution means that every fossil is a transitional fossil.
Start wherever you want Ive studied this so long.

Evolution WITHIN its own species, I explained that if you read, thats called MICRO evolution. now Show me 1 fossil record of a species in transition to another species.

Even scientist acknowledge the lack of transitional fossils.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #22 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 08:06 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by can'tdrive55
Explain the Nazca plains.............that is some really weird stuff.



HEY ERIC! Can I join your "Old Guys" club?

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #23 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 08:58 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
Start wherever you want Ive studied this so long.

Evolution WITHIN its own species, I explained that if you read, thats called MICRO evolution. now Show me 1 fossil record of a species in transition to another species.

Even scientist acknowledge the lack of transitional fossils.
The common one is the Hyopsodus. We'll start there.

Then we can discuss the plesictis and ictitherium.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #24 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 09:00 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonDog



HEY ERIC! Can I join your "Old Guys" club?
Yah man!
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #25 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-16-2005, 10:25 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
The common one is the Hyopsodus. We'll start there.

Then we can discuss the plesictis and ictitherium.
I seriously hope you can do better than these, READ man, Ive already said there is evolution within a species, but I think thats where we are seperating, your examples are of species within species, you are just backing me up!!


This is as I described MICRO evolution. Evolution of a species WITHIN its species.

The most common fossil mammal from the lower Eocene is a little primitive weasel-looking condylarth called Hyopsodus. It was previously known that many very different species of Hyopsodus were found at different sites, with (for example) very different tooth size. In 1976, Gingerich analyzed the tooth size of all the known fossils of Hyopsodus that could be dated reliably and independently. He found that "the pattern of change in tooth size that emerges is one of continuous gradual change between lineages, with gradual divergence following the separation of new sister lineages." When tooth size is charted against time, it shows the single lineage smoothly splitting into four descendant lineages. (This was one of the first detailed & extensive studies of speciation.)

AGAIN, Micro evolution.

Plesictis (early Oligocene) -- Transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels etc.)
Miacids , This creodont (?) lost the last molar & then later enlarged the last upper premolar and first lower molar. (In modern carnivores, these two teeth are very enlarged to be the wickedly shearing carnassial teeth, the hallmark of carnivores.)

AGAIN, Micro evolution.


ictitherium
Also known as:

hyaenids were once very common and have an abundant fossil record. There is a main stem of generally small to medium-sized civet-like forms, showing a general trend toward an increase in size (Werdelin & Solounias, 1991):


One of the best-known jackal-like hyaenids is Ictitherium viverrinum. Its first remains in Europe turn up in Central Europe from 11 million years ago. It ranged over Western Europe until approximately 7 million years ago, when it began to vanish. It survived in southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia for another million years before it became totally extinct. It probably looked like a jackal, and not much like today's spotted hyena.

Last edited by shrp88lx's; 03-17-2005 at 06:01 AM.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #26 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 06:40 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
I seriously hope you can do better than these, READ man, Ive already said there is evolution within a species, but I think thats where we are seperating, your examples are of species within species, you are just backing me up!!
I seriously hope you can do better than this shrp88lxs.

No, I'm not backing you up.

The change in molars of the Hypsodus shows transitional evolution between SPECIES within a genus. Which is what you asked for.

The problem you are having with this is you are not looking at the actual structure of species which is a tree, not a straight line.

Asking for something "in between" would be to ask for a fossil where a genus splits. No organism has a genus classification.

As a creationist you must show that there are more gaps in the record than would be expected normally based on a random distribution. If the gaps occur in normal distribution the gaps they are not proof of creationism, but acceptable normal distribution.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #27 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 07:26 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
I seriously hope you can do better than this shrp88lxs.

No, I'm not backing you up.

The change in molars of the Hypsodus shows transitional evolution between SPECIES within a genus. Which is what you asked for.
No, heres where we are different, I may have used a word you dont like and you can base your argument on semantics if you want, but you do understand what I mean.
For instance there are many "species" of Dogs, however each evolution withiin that where something that is a "Species A" dog becomes "Species B" dog. IS STILL A DOG!!! So as you stated WITHIN A GENUS!!! evolution with that is Micro which I already agreed too.

Heres a pic for you:
Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, and new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or downward) changes—no increasing complexity.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

shrp88lx's is offline  
post #28 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 08:06 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
As a creationist you must show that there are more gaps in the record than would be expected normally based on a random distribution. If the gaps occur in normal distribution the gaps they are not proof of creationism, but acceptable normal distribution.
As an evolutionist it is you who must show scientific evidence of the evolving you claim the world has been through(Genus to Genus). HENCE the term "theory" as it is popularly used. The gaps are there because evolution from 1 genus to another doesnt exist!!
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #29 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 08:28 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
As an evolutionist it is you who must show scientific evidence of the evolving you claim the world has been through(Genus to Genus). HENCE the term "theory" as it is popularly used. The gaps are there because evolution from 1 genus to another doesnt exist!!
don't know much about science, eh?

There is a normal distribution of gaps, certainly within the bounds of millions of years of evolutions.

You went from genus to genus from species to species. Keep on track now.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #30 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 08:33 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
You went from genus to genus from species to species. Keep on track now.
I changed the words so you would know what I meant cause you wanted to arue semantics. Yes I said Species to Species but I also said there was evidence of evolution within a species. I figured you were smart enough to understand the difference of withiin a species and "species to species".

Your typical you dont want to debate the fact that most people have the idea when speaking of evolution its Genus to Genus.

I used term the average person understands, you use to confuse because you know it cant be proven.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #31 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 08:34 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
don't know much about science, eh?
obviously as much as you!!

STILL WAITING on the fossil evidence ????
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #32 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 08:35 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
No, heres where we are different, I may have used a word you dont like and you can base your argument on semantics if you want, but you do understand what I mean.[/IMG]
Use proper nomenclature and we can talk the same. You know, the things taxonomy are based on: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

Quote:

NO FOSSIL has EVER been found of a species in transition to another species!! Of the MILLIONS found not one!!!
Which I replied it would be impossible to find a fossil showing this transition since there IS NO ORGANISM AT THE GENUS level.

For someone who has "studied" this for such a long time, you certaintly do not understand the basic thing you are trying to refute.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #33 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 08:46 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Use proper nomenclature and we can talk the same..
well I did that so you would understand?? Now what?? We agree as I read it, word useage aside??? We both agree that evolution occurs within a species of a genus. we both agree that NO EVIDENCE exist of genus to genus evolution.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #34 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 09:01 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
well I did that so you would understand?? Now what?? We agree as I read it, word useage aside??? We both agree that evolution occurs within a species of a genus. we both agree that NO EVIDENCE exist of genus to genus evolution.
So now, we went from species to species to genus to genus. You are changing your tune, not me.

Of course there wouldn't be a genus to genus jump, that is not how it works. My dogs in the backyard and going to magically transform into the cats across the street, not tomorrow, not in a million years, not in a billion years.

But, a million years from now, there certainly will be new species based on the other those two species that will fork the taxonomy tree.

Order perissodactlya and order cetacea can be traced back to eocene animals which look neither like horse nor whales. Looking at the taxonomy when eocene were roaming the earth there was no order perissodactlya and cetacea.

Now there is.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #35 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 09:14 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
So now, we went from species to species to genus to genus. You are changing your tune, not me.
Of course there wouldn't be a genus to genus jump, that is not how it works. My dogs in the backyard and going to magically transform into the cats across the street, not tomorrow, not in a million years, not in a billion years.

Im not going to continue, Ive already addressed this, I have not changed any tune, I simply, as you asked used the word you understand.

Nice chatting with ya, not sure where we disagree but we aparently do??
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #36 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 10:16 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
Im not going to continue, Ive already addressed this, I have not changed any tune, I simply, as you asked used the word you understand.

Nice chatting with ya, not sure where we disagree but we aparently do??

Lets see we talk species first... then genus...

I give you an order mutation.

You are done.

Yes you are.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #37 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 10:39 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Of course there wouldn't be a genus to genus jump, that is not how it works. My dogs in the backyard and going to magically transform into the cats across the street, not tomorrow, not in a million years, not in a billion years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra

Asking for something "in between" would be to ask for a fossil where a genus splits. No organism has a genus classification.




No this is done.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #38 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 11:01 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 392
Technologies of the gods



DID ADAM HAVE THREE PARENTS?


News of advances in artificial human reproduction –- the treatment of infertility, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), genetic enhancement, cloning -– have become commonplace. Yet a headline over a recent news report caught my attention and aroused my curiosity:


IVF Creates Fetuses With Three Parents


The report, as rendered in the New Scientist issue of 18 October 2003, concerned “a woman that has become pregnant through a procedure that combines a controversial IVF method with one of the techniques used for cloning.”


The feat was performed by American scientific teams at a Medical Science University and concerned a woman who failed to conceive, even through IVF techniques, because her embryos stopped developing after two days. The new procedure, using IVF (In-Vitro Fertilization) methods, first removed the woman’s egg, fertilized it with her husband’s sperm outside the womb, and then –- and that was the innovation –- obtained the eggs of another woman (“the donor”), emptied them of their genetic nuclei, re-injected into these donated eggs the fertilized material from the woman’s egg, and then re-implanted the manipulated eggs in wombs (the woman’s or that of a donor).

The key change in the previously-recorded procedures was that by using the donor’s egg even without its normal DNA, the DNA that comes only from the woman -- mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA –- has been preserved in the recombined egg. By having the mtDNA not of the woman but that of the donor, conception and pregnancy took hold.

Thus, not only procedurally but also genetically, the fetus had three parents: The woman, the male partner, and the female donor.


Now, Read the Sumerian Texts…


This report caught my attention because it sounds very much like the problems, and the solutions, encountered by Enki and Ninmah (later known as Ninti) when they engaged in genetic engineering to fashion “The Adam” -– the Earthling -– by upgrading the wild Homo erectus found in southeast Africa to become Homo sapiens (you and me)


The Sumerian creation texts -– yes, texts, not one but several –- have been reported by me in my first book, The 12th Planet, enlarged upon in Genesis Revisited, and then rendered in maximal detail in The Lost Book of Enki (2002). The methods used, the trial and error, the involvement of the young son of Enki Ningishzidda, are all there. But after the successful fashioning of the male Adamu, the efforts to fashion a female counterpart failed. It was then that Enki realized that the problem might be the re-implanting of the fertilized egg in the womb of an Earthling female.


“For a counterpart to Adamu to be fashioned, in the womb of an Anunnaki female conception is needed!” so did Enki say.


Success came after Enki’s spouse, Ninki, volunteered to have the recombined egg implanted in her womb. The change, the recent experiments reveal, was that the source of the mtDNA was that of Ninki, an Anunnaki female, and not the Earthling mother.


Ti-Amat –- the biblical Eve -– thus had the DNA of three parents.

Once again, modern science corroborates the Sumerian knowledge.



And Speaking of Clay...


While writing the above article, another news item captured the media's (and my) attention. Headlined MAYBE WE CAME FROM CLAY AFTER ALL, it reported (to quote the MSNBC News version) from Washington on October 23, 2003 that Science backed up religion Thursday in a study that suggests life may have indeed sprung from clay -- just as many faiths teach.

A team at Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Bostonsaid they had shown that materials in clay supported processes similar to those that may have given rise to life.

Specifically, a clay mixture called montmorillonite not only helps form little bags of fat and liquid, but helps cells use genetic material called RNA; that, in turn, is one of the key processes of life.


The report then quotes the scientists involved for additional details of the procedures based on the use of clay, and refers the readers to the relevant verses in Genesis.

In The 12th Planet I quoted the relevant Sumerian texts (that preceded the biblical tale by several millennia) that refer to the use of clay. In the The Lost Book of Enki the repeated failures to obtain a non-defective newborn are described, with success coming only after Enki realized that


Perchance the shortfall is not in the admixture...

Perchance neither in the female's oval

nor in the essences is the hindrance

Of what the Earth itself is fashioned,

perchance that is what is missing?

And success in obtaining the perfect model of Adamu came after Ninmah followed his instructions and instead of combining the genes in a crystal vessel, it was done in a vessel made of the CLAY OF THE EARTH. (The Lost Book of Enki, page 136).


In this detail too, modern science is following the "Technologies of the gods."






Dialogue in Bellaria




SITCHIN AND VATICAN THEOLOGIAN DISCUSS UFO's,
EXTRATERRESTRIALS, ANGELS, CREATION OF MAN

Report by Zecharia Sitchin


In what must be a historic first, a high official of the Vatican and a Hebrew scholar discussed the issue of Extraterrestrials and the Creation of Man, and though different from each other in upbringing, background, religion and methodology, nevertheless arrived at common conclusions:

* Yes, Extraterrestrials can and do exist on other planets
* Yes, they can be more advanced than us
* Yes, materially, Man could have been fashioned from a pre-existing sentient being.
The Participants

The high Vatican official was Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Catholic theologian with impressive credentials: A member of the Curia of the Roman Catholic Church, a Prelate of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Propagation of the Faith, leading exorcist of the Archdiocese of Rome, a member of the Vatican's Beatification Committee, an expert on Demonology and the author of several books. Appointed in the Vatican to deal with the issue of UFO's and Extraterrestrials, he has made in recent years pronouncements indicating a tolerance of the subjects; but he has never before met and had a dialogue with a Hebrew scholar, and gone beyond prescribed formulations to include the touchy issue of the Creation of Man.

The Hebrew scholar was me -- Zecharia Sitchin: A researcher of ancient civilizations, a biblical archaeologist, a descendant of Abraham…

The Monsignor and I almost met for such a dialogue last December, but it did not come about. This time we were scheduled to meet in Bellaria, Italy, at a conference whose theme was “The Mystery of Human Existence.” I arrived there with my wife and a score of fans from the usa, on March 31st, scheduled to address the audience of over a thousand the next day. The Monsignor was nowhere in sight; but he was there the next morning to hear my presentation. “I drove the whole night from Rome to hear you,” he said.








Sitchin’s Presentation
My talk, ably translated by my Italian editor Tuvia Fogel, included a slide presentation that added a pictorial dimension to the evidence from ancient times in support of Sumerian texts, on which my eight books based the following conclusions:

We are not alone -- not just in the vast universe, but in our own solar system; There is one more planet in our solar system, orbiting beyond Pluto but nearing Earth periodically; Advanced "Extraterrestrials” -- the Sumerians called them Anunnaki, the Bible Nefilim -- started to visit our planet some 450,000 years ago; And, some 300,000 years ago, they engaged in genetic engineering to upgrade Earth's hominids and fashion Homo sapiens, the Adam. In that, they acted as Emissaries for the Universal Creator -- God.


The Dialogue

"We have much to talk about,” Msgr. Balducci said to me as he came forward to congratulate me on my presentation; "I have great esteem for your scholarship," he said.

We returned to the hotel for lunch. Our table was surrounded in a semi-circle by my American fans, intent on not missing a word of the forthcoming dialogue. In the hours-long session, Msgr. Balducci outlined the positions he was going to state, from a prepared text, in his talk the next day. While my approach was based on physical evidence, his was a purely Roman Catholic theological-philosophical one, seeking the spiritual aspects. Yet, our conclusions converged.

Msgr. Balducci's Positions

ON UFO's. "There must be something in it." The hundreds and thousands of eyewitness reports leave no room for denying that there is a measure of truth in them, even allowing for optical illusions, atmospheric phenomena and so on. As a Catholic theologian such witnessing cannot be dismissed. "Witnessing is one way of transmitting truth, and in the case of the Christian religion, we are talking about a Divine Revelation in which witnessing is crucial to the credibility of our faith.”

ON LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS: “That life may exist on other planets is certainly possible... The Bible does not rule out that possibility. On the basis of scripture and on the basis of our knowledge of God's omnipotence, His wisdom being limitless, we must affirm that life on other planets is possible." Moreover, this is not only possible, but also credible and even probable. '"Cardinal Nicolo Cusano (1401-1464) wrote that there is not a single star in the sky about which we can rule out the existence of life, even if different from ours.”

ON INTELLIGENT EXTRATERRESTRIALS: "When I talk about Extraterrestrials, we must think of beings who are like us -- more probably, beings more advanced than us, in that their nature is an association of a material part and a spiritual part, a body and a soul, although in different proportions than human beings on Earth." Angels are beings who are purely spiritual, devoid of bodies, while we are made up of spirit and matter but still at a low level. "It is entirely credible that in the enormous distance between Angels and humans, there could be found some middle stage, that is beings with a body like ours but more elevated spiritually. If such intelligent beings really exist on other planets, only science will be able to prove; but in spite of what some people think, we would be in a position to reconcile their existence with the Redemption that Christ has brought us.”


The Anunnaki and the Creation of Man

Well then, I asked Msgr. Balducci, does it mean that my presentation was no great revelation to you? We appear to agree, I said, that more advanced extraterrestrials can exist, and I use science to evidence their coming to Earth ...I then quote the Sumerian texts that say that the Anunnaki (“Those who from heaven to Earth came”) genetically improved an existing being on Earth to create the being that the Bible calls Adam.

My conclusion regarding your presentation, Msgr. Balducci answered, is that more than anything else your whole approach is based on physical evidence, it concerns itself with matter, not with spirit. This is an important distinction, "because if this distinction is made, I can bring up the view of the great theologian, Professor Father Marakoff, who is still alive and is greatly respected by the Church. He formulated the hypothesis that when God created Man and put the soul into him, perhaps what is meant is not that Man was created from mud or lime, but from something pre-existing, even from a sentient being capable of feeling and perception. So the idea of taking a pre-man or hominid and creating someone who is aware of himself is something that Christianity is coming around to…The key is the distinction between the material body and the soul granted by God."


From Anunnaki to God

Yes, I responded to the theologian, in my writings I deal with the physical evidence; but already in my first book (The 12th Planet), the very last sentence of the last paragraph raises the question: If the Extraterrestrials "created" us, who created them on their planet?

From this my own thinking and the contents of my subsequent books evolved toward the spiritual or "divine" aspects. The Anunnaki, I have explained, were just emissaries (and that is what the Hebrew word Malachim, translated Angels, means). They thought that it was their decision to come here for selfish reasons and to fashion us because they needed workers; but in truth they only carried out the Almighty God's wishes and plans.

If such Extraterrestrials were so involved, Msgr. Balducci said, even by your own interpretation they had to do with Man's physics, body and rationality: but God alone had to do with the Soul!

My second book, that deals with Man's aspiration to ascend the heavens, is titled The Stairway to Heaven, I told Msgr, Balducci, "it seems to me that we are ascending the same stairway to heaven, though from different steps," I said.

We ended the dialogue as friends, determined to stay in touch and continue.


Reproduction is permitted if accompanied by the statement

© Z. Sitchin 2000
Reproduced by permission.

I have tons more articles and factual documents that refer to this sbject. Dinosaurs were "created" by sentient beings and left to "micro evolve" as we were.
It's fact. Religion is a control mechanism to keep man undereducated and in a controlled environment.
If you read the Bible carefully .....



Genesis 1:26; And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.







When you look into a mirror you see the product of DNA, your physical IMAGE. DNA is a language that describes the physical characteristics of the body you are animating.

Genesis 1:26 is specific in telling us that the human race is the product of a plural entity where each of those entities possess their OWN physical body or IMAGE.

The Orthodox interpretation of the bible holds that “God” is in reference to the Holy Trinity. If the Orthodox interpretation of the bible is true then all three members of the Trinity MUST be animates of physical bodies as Genesis 1:26 reflects.

TK
TK_Blown98_GT is offline  
post #39 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 11:02 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
No this is done.
Thought you were done?

CCCCD overs a great anthropology class. Might do you some good.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #40 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 11:09 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Thought you were done?

CCCCD overs a great anthropology class. Might do you some good.
reading comprehension would do you some!!
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #41 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 11:11 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 392
What you are learning in school is total BS. The only evolution that is real is "Micro Evolution". Evolution you are being taught as we all were is impossible. Micro evolution is far more plausable and real. Creationism is also, but not by an omnipresent God as wea are taught to believe. Logic tells us the truth. Church doesn't. THe fact that ET's are real is undisputable. As are UFo's man made or Extraterrestrial.........It is So egotistical and self ritious to think we are the chosen ones or the only Intellegent life in all of the millions of dimentions of the universe. THe big bang is Bs Too! Never happened. String Theory is real and prooves the Big bang wrong and shows that for man there is no "constant" for the universe. It is a huge chaotic Soup of stuff. Always changing yet seeming to Stay constant. Always expanding and replentishing.
Just listen to your teachers and get "A's" and after you graduate you can forget all the crap you were taught and go to college and make up yopu own mind. Don't be a sheep and follow the herd just cause it keeps people "off you back". Wake up and see reality...........
TK
TK_Blown98_GT is offline  
post #42 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 11:52 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
reading comprehension would do you some!!
Give me your, "I promise not to change the argument when you prove me wrong" definition of transitional fossil.

I'll put you in your place with that. Then it will be over.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #43 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 12:01 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK_Blown98_GT
What you are learning in school is total BS. The only evolution that is real is "Micro Evolution". Evolution you are being taught as we all were is impossible. Micro evolution is far more plausable and real.
There certainly is macro evolution.

Macro meaning genes between species diverge.
Micro meaning genes within species combine.

Only difference.

The misconception being that something special must happen once you rise over the species level is a problem with an understanding of how new phyla are created.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #44 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 12:03 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Give me your, "I promise not to change the argument when you prove me wrong" definition of transitional fossil.

I'll put you in your place with that. Then it will be over.
you have a problem with reading what I wrote, so go back and try again. I will try this again.. I originally used the term species to species, I also said "within a species", I have already said that I used those words because thats the terms most people use. You brought out genous term and so AT YOUR REQUEST to be on the same terminolgy, I swithed to it, now all you want to do is try and bash me for that. You Sir are disengenuos. Ive tried for several posts now to get to you that i DID indeed use the word Species for Genous, now I hope you get that.
NOW I have ALSO AGREED to evolution within a "genous", as you have shown with your "proof", however my original "species to species" or in your terms "genous to genous" has never been proven and you have agreed to that!!

So again I will say, I think we are on the same page, so your insults to me when trying to have a discussion show your true character. You didnt want to try and find out anything, you just wanted to try and bash me over a word!! Have a nice day!!
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #45 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 12:10 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
you have a problem with reading what I wrote, so go back and try again. I will try this again.. I originally used the term species to species, I also said "within a species", I have already said that I used those words because thats the terms most people use. You brought out genous term and so AT YOUR REQUEST to be on the same terminolgy, I swithed to it, now all you want to do is try and bash me for that. You Sir are disengenuos. Ive tried for several posts now to get to you that i DID indeed use the word Species for Genous, now I hope you get that.
NOW I have ALSO AGREED to evolution within a "genous", as you have shown with your "proof", however my original "species to species" or in your terms "genous to genous" has never been proven and you have agreed to that!!

So again I will say, I think we are on the same page, so your insults to me when trying to have a discussion show your true character. You didnt want to try and find out anything, you just wanted to try and bash me over a word!! Have a nice day!!
What the heck is a genous?

Actually if you actually read my posts I gave you a split at the order level, above genus. What you are asking for is impossible and has never been said to be true in evolution. Species is the lowest, it would be impossible to "species jump" and that is not what evolution is about.

As far as your "bashing" goes, look at your own posts. The first slight was made by you with your "I seriously hope you can do better than these, READ man".

You told me you were well read in evolution. I thought you might actually be able to discuss it. I was wrong.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #46 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 12:16 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
I was wrong.
see i knew we agreed.
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #47 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 12:18 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
see i knew we agreed.
Another brilliant debate point by the master himself.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #48 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 12:34 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
There certainly is macro evolution.

Macro meaning genes between species diverge.
Micro meaning genes within species combine.

Only difference.

The misconception being that something special must happen once you rise over the species level is a problem with an understanding of how new phyla are created.
In an attempt to clarify our definitions:


Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, and new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or downward) changes—no increasing complexity.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.
Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution
shrp88lx's is offline  
post #49 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 01:04 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrp88lx's
In an attempt to clarify our definitions:
State the source.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #50 of 69 (permalink) Old 03-17-2005, 01:24 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wichita Kansas
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
State the source.
“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument ... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation. ... For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.



“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105

It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider, 1984), pp. 67–68.
shrp88lx's is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome