Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Religion > Christianity > Re: How did the...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 270 of 286 Topic 22090 of 22550
Post > Topic >>

Re: How did they know?

by John Baker <nunya@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 14, 2008 at 06:44 AM

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:13:10 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>When the book of Genesis was written, some 2300 years ago, how did the
>author(s), whom ever he/she/they was/were, know that aquatic plant
>life had to precede aquatic animal life, then plant life had to move
>out of the water onto land. 
>
>Terrestrial animals had to have something to eat. There is no doubt
>that the Genesis author(s) understood this and placed Terrestrial
>animal life at the end of the sequence of the Terrestrial life
>development process.
>
>How did they know that humans had to come at the very end of this life
>forming process? Why did they not, instead, put humans near the first
>on the development sequence and have them involved in the formation of
>many of the other life forms. "Humans needed (fill in the blank) so
>they bred and cultured the animals and plants they needed, or
>something like that."
>
>Why did the author(s) if Genesis not reason that Terrestrial plant
>life came first, followed by Terrestrial animal life, then when their
>refuse began to wash into the oceans and lakes, aquatic life was the
>result? How did they, instead, surmise that life forms could/did
>wash/crawl up out of the water onto land? Why didn't those primitive
>minds "assume" that Terrestrial life forms washed down the streams
>into the lakes and oceans rather than having climbed up out of the
>oceans/lakes against the flow of the streams. Did they think those
>early aquatic life forms had legs or that they could crawl like worms
>such as to enable them to go against the flow, so to speak?
>
>How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
>speak, and get this so very nearly right in all im****tant respects?


Odd how nobody noticed that this stuff was in the Bible until *after*
science discovered it, don't you think?

The truth is they *didn't* know. 

>
>Gordon
 




 286 Posts in Topic:
NO EVIDENCE
"Bill M" <wm  2008-04-27 19:27:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 19:38:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 23:54:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:05:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 21:18:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:59:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-04-28 13:56:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 00:58:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-28 19:41:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-30 04:14:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
"Pastor Frank"   2008-04-30 10:52:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-30 21:59:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-28 18:07:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
"Pastor Frank"   2008-05-30 07:59:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-04-28 13:46:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 19:41:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:05:55 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 01:01:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Richo <m.richardson61@  2008-04-27 20:19:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-27 20:35:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-28 17:01:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:51:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-13 11:01:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 19:10:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 11:29:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:29:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 00:36:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-15 05:50:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 13:34:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-16 08:08:14 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Robibnikoff" &  2008-05-16 08:30:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-16 08:43:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 18:02:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 05:03:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-04-28 07:19:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-28 17:30:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-29 14:18:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-29 17:09:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-30 08:31:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-30 20:17:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 06:52:45 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 13:33:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 13:45:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-01 04:47:25 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 21:05:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-01 19:38:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:23:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:22:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 17:57:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-01 08:45:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 21:15:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-01 15:20:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:48:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-05 00:04:25 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:21:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-04-30 22:01:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"firefly" <f  2008-05-01 22:25:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-05-02 04:32:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 08:46:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-01 22:36:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-02 04:31:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-02 04:32:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 08:43:42 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-02 06:46:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:27:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 18:44:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-10 09:04:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 10:38:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-10 09:08:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Pastor Frank"   2008-05-12 06:10:30 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Fred Jones" &l  2008-05-12 11:52:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 02:37:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-12 12:16:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-10 11:14:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 09:49:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:29:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-02 07:55:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:42:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-02 17:52:43 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 18:55:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-02 17:39:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
John W. Wells <djinn@[  2008-05-10 20:02:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 08:57:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 09:14:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-05-11 14:45:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-11 14:48:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-11 20:40:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-05-02 20:05:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-05-02 16:29:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-02 22:12:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-03 09:06:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-03 09:46:52 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-05 21:32:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 07:19:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-06 03:48:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 17:10:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-06 12:04:06 
freedom of religion is a Christian concept
monkfish <monkfish@[EM  2008-05-06 13:13:38 
Re: freedom of religion is a Christian concept
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-07 03:09:13 
How do you know that we are created equal?
monkfish <monkfish@[EM  2008-05-06 13:05:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-05-05 23:41:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-06 17:26:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-06 21:31:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:08:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-07 03:17:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-07 18:14:50 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 18:15:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Santolina chamaecyparissu  2008-05-06 19:49:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-07 20:56:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-08 09:29:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-07 21:18:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-08 01:42:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-08 15:50:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-08 18:51:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:18:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-08 18:20:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-08 21:26:48 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-09 11:49:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-09 03:04:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-09 03:07:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 16:54:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-09 20:05:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-09 19:33:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-10 08:35:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 17:36:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-10 08:29:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 03:15:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-10 19:34:42 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-11 17:40:50 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 19:56:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 22:58:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 18:00:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-12 01:32:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-11 21:22:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:53:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 21:02:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-11 22:10:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-12 06:55:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:07:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-12 17:40:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:13:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-12 13:52:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:16:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-12 16:31:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-12 21:55:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 11:47:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-13 09:51:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 19:07:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-13 13:20:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-14 13:13:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-14 18:03:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-15 05:54:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 21:40:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-15 11:46:42 
AQOTM Nomination Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 21:41:32 
Re: AQOTM Nomination Re: NO EVIDENCE
atheist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-17 01:39:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-15 21:20:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 21:23:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-15 23:47:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Virgil <Virgil@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 01:35:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 13:30:28 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-16 18:14:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-17 05:06:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-18 15:15:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-18 20:36:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-17 08:22:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-17 13:08:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-17 17:39:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-18 08:15:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-17 18:50:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-18 22:57:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-19 08:50:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-19 16:50:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-19 20:34:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-20 08:24:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-20 04:21:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-21 00:45:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-19 18:24:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-20 21:22:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-21 04:47:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-21 17:38:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-22 03:08:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-22 12:21:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
hhyapster@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-05-21 23:25:28 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-22 04:43:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
saint7peter@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-22 01:58:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-22 12:25:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-22 20:13:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-23 16:28:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
asilentskeptic <asilen  2008-05-22 20:20:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-22 21:06:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-22 23:37:41 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-23 15:47:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Tokay Pino Gris <tokay  2008-05-25 17:10:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-23 17:05:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-23 21:11:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-24 07:54:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-24 08:15:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-25 07:57:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-26 09:18:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-24 07:52:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-24 16:37:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:51:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-06-01 19:16:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-23 17:35:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-23 19:50:24 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-25 11:12:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-25 18:40:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-25 14:15:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:56:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:52:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-06-01 19:14:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-25 22:46:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-26 17:21:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:57:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:39:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:44:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-28 18:06:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-29 21:32:14 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-30 13:29:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-30 21:49:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:51:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-06-01 23:39:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-06-02 07:04:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-06-02 09:03:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-06-04 21:57:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-05-03 00:42:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-03 20:13:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-03 20:38:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-04 09:17:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-04 06:31:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-04 10:43:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-04 21:37:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-05 00:44:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-05 07:19:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:56:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-05 16:16:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-05 19:34:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 07:16:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-10 20:36:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 21:52:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 08:23:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 09:30:48 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 08:36:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 09:38:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 09:52:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 16:27:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 17:39:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-11 15:00:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 19:28:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 19:39:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-12 08:14:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-11 16:07:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 18:09:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 10:59:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:48:13 
How did they know?
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-13 15:13:10 
Re: How did they know?
Lars Eighner <usenet@[  2008-05-13 15:45:25 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 14:53:13 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 15:42:51 
Re: How did they know?
duke <duckgumbo32@[EMA  2008-05-26 17:47:51 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 19:02:08 
Re: How did they know?
duke <duckgumbo32@[EMA  2008-05-27 06:45:23 
Re: How did they know?
Lars Eighner <usenet@[  2008-05-13 15:49:42 
Re: How did they know?
raven1 <quoththeraven@  2008-05-13 18:04:35 
Re: How did they know?
Uncle Vic <address@[EM  2008-05-13 22:51:58 
Re: How did they know?
John Locke <johnlocke9  2008-05-13 16:40:08 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:09:53 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 15:38:01 
Re: How did they know?
John Baker <nunya@[EMA  2008-05-14 06:44:55 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:22:23 
Re: How did they know?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claude_Hop  2008-05-14 08:28:42 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:17:10 
Re: How did they know?
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-05-13 21:08:03 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:01:13 
Re: How did they know?
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-14 01:59:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 13:34:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 10:24:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 15:04:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 15:05:58 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-14 11:17:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:35:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 11:15:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:30:58 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 00:56:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-05-14 16:45:03 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Thu Jul 24 23:26:22 CDT 2008.