Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:21 pm

How they call for public debates with high profile evolutionists ... but regularly censor or ban lower profile supporters of science when these people challenge their pseudoscience and science denial online. I consider it unethical to censor critical comments, sometimes in mid-discussion, in order to give 'fans' the impression that an opponent could not or would not answer a question or challenge posed by the author of a blog page or creationist website - when the reality is very different.

How about some examples of what I allege?

Banned by Tony Breeden/Sirius Knott in 2010: ... mment-2194

Examples (2) and following appear in further, individual, posts below.

Meanwhile of course there is 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen, and how he and his administrators deal with questioning comments whenever they are posted at his Facebook page 'The Question Evolution Project'. I have never tried to post a comment there myself - I have read THIS: ... erman/info

I am however grateful that Tas Walker has permitted my second comment here. His responses to me show clearly that how he explains what is seen in the Appalachian mountains today is informed by his beliefs and not by the actual geological evidence. ... ahs-flood/

He did censor a previous, concise, comment that I made under THIS blog post: ... nd-canyon/
"I'm referring to the sum of historical records too (including the
lack of non-biblical records of recent Earth recolonisation).
My comment was not alluding to dates as I was accepting the claimed
YEC flood date - arguments about dates are largely irrelevant in this
My metaphorical cap is on already.
The idea that the well-sorted geological record results from a
catastrophic flood is laughable. No YEC article has persuaded me
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:36 pm

Issac Bourne/Ikester7579 censored my comment on this article when it first appeared (it was expanded - with added links - but still took no account of my detailed comments):

I would take this more seriously if you provided a link where I could
actually read what NASA are apparently saying which you disagree with.
Your failure to do so with such an emotive blog title does not inspire
much confidence.
As you probably know, Mars today has a thin and rarified atmosphere.
According to Wikipedia "the thin atmosphere on Mars may be partly due
to it lacking a magnetosphere - energy from the solar wind enables
particles in the top atmospheric layer to reach escape velocity and
leave Mars". (As you admit at the end of your post - the implication is
that the atmosphere was once thicker.)
I know for a fact that NASA are not expecting to find evidence of past
'warm-blooded' or 'cold-blooded' life on Mars. Rather they think the
planet may - perhaps - once have hosted microbes.
Your attempt to make 'fools' of NASA is rather amusing. If anybody is
making inaccurate comments here, I suggest to you that it is not NASA.
This is not a 'hate post'.

EDIT: I've just re-read the Bourne post. In his detailed 'argument' that NASA are 'lying' he ignores the fact that Mars once had a thicker atmosphere, which would have been gradually removed by the solar wind and because the (small) planet's gravity means it could not hold onto much of an atmosphere. He also clearly does not know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. And - as I stated in my censored comments - NASA are looking for evidence of microbes or past microbes, NOT creatures similar to the mammals or reptiles found on Earth (like humans who are 'full' of water which is why Felix Baumgartner required such protection when he jumped from around 24 miles above the Earth where atmospheric pressure is very low)! Some microbes on Earth create energy from photosynthesis or even chemosynthesis. That is they don't require oxygen (hydrogen plus oxygen go together to make H2O water of course). Evidence of past (recent) LIQUID water has been seen on the surface of Mars, as well as evidence of possible present day FROZEN water (as well as frozen carbon dioxide or dry ice). "Because the atmosphere proves water “never existed” on Mars". Utter nonsense. Unless perhaps you believe in 'only' 6,000 years of time. Science doesn't and nor do I.

The man is a dogmatic and ill-informed science denier, pure and simple.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:16 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:50 pm

Your Origins Matter (part of the ICR) behaved outrageously in this example: ... latives/74
I ANSWERED their question of 9 November (see comments) but they clearly WISHED to pretend otherwise. I did not save my exact text - but the gist, as I posted on this community forum on 15 December, was that:
I (a) flagged this science paper
and this recent blog post ... saur-cell/
and (b) commented briefly that many diamonds are formed deep
underground rather than from subducted organic matter that would
contain some atmosphere-derived carbon 14, so there would be NO reason
for such diamonds to 'contain' carbon 14 and therefore it must be from
machine contamination.
In addition the blogger 'Eye on the ICR' has stated (on 16 Nov under his blog post of 14 Nov) that he was also similarly censored. This was his attempted response:
"My friend above is complaining that his comments aren’t getting through, so if you don’t mind I’ll take up the challenge of answering your concerns.

On the main ICR site Mr Brian Thomas recently published two articles on the same Mary Schweitzer protein-preservation paper. Despite this attention he in both cases fails to so much as mention that the paper also contains a discussion on how the preservation might have occurred – the factors that mean that cells deep within a bone might last much longer than the meat that lies unprotected on top of it. Schweitzer, at least, sees no “discrepancy” between her results and the age of the fossils. You are always so keen to accept her discoveries at face value, but you then ignore her explanations of how they could have come about.

When it comes down to it the issue of soft tissues comes down to whether or not they are more reliable as an age indicator than the usual methods, i.e. radiometric dating. Another recent Thomas article reported on measurements of a half-life for DNA, research which I’m sure will not be the last word on the matter as DNA decay varies significantly with different conditions. Overlooked in Thomas’ article was the fact that the observed rate of decay was around 400 times slower than was predicted from measurements in the lab. Truth be told, we have no reliable data on how long organic material can be expected to last in the ground, in stark contrast with radioactive decay. To claim that the soft tissues should be given more weight is laughable, to say the least.

As for the carbon dating issue, I’d like to direct you to one of your own articles: Gerald A. Aardsma’s “Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating” in Acts & Facts. 18 (3) (March 1989), specifically myth #4 which deals with that topic. While times have changed since the late 80′s I don’t see anything in your post above that goes beyond what Aardsma said.

I submit that scientists don’t often talk about this subject as it is not, and they do not regard it as, a problem. Nobody is infallible, no, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong here."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:05 pm

Censorship by blogger Jason Petersen. He allowed me ONE response to a blog post which was partly ABOUT ME - and then censored all the rest, alleging that I was being 'emotional'.
See ... /#comments

I take your point that you did not expressly state that the BCSE was an atheist organisation. However your blog post title clearly refers to 'online atheists' and in your opening paragraph you said "I chose their site [the BCSE site although your previous blog post earlier this week did not identify the site] as an example of the inefficiency the new atheist movement’s ineffectiveness at responding to Christians". Thus you certainly did NOT state that the BCSE is against creationism, not against religion or atheistic. For someone not familiar with it to wrongly assume that the BCSE is an atheistic site would be an understandable mistake for someone to make. You also did not quote the organisation's full name, which is why I suggested you were 'uninformed'.
Until recently a young Earth creationist (Marc Surtees) used to post regularly on the BCSE community forum. Peter Henderson and Michael Roberts are both Christians.
"What I would expect for an agnostic is to be neutral on the position of whether or not God exists, but that is not the position that you take on the BCSE forums. Labeling you as an atheist would be quite accurate as I have never seen you stick up for any religion or any gods." You will not find any posts by me there stating that God does not exist. You may find posts by me criticising how the Christian god, assuming he exists, behaves. The views expressed are personal and I do not represent the BCSE in any shape or form.
"I saw no libeling in his blog. Even after reading your timeline on the BCSE forums, I still agree with Bob". ... ciple.html ... ssion.html ... ecord.html
Please don't tell me you approve of these!
(Some of Bob's libellous blog posts were subsequently taken down.)
The point is that whilst I have sometimes criticised young Earth creationists online, I do so with FACTS (as in my review of Jonathan Sarfati's book). Whereas Bob Sorensen is simply full of, frequently incorrect, insults.
At the end of December he accused me on Facebook at the Question Evolution Project page of having been banned from his Facebook page - despite me previously informing him that I had never posted there.
He wrote: "Note to all: Since Ashley Haworth-Roberts is a cowardly troll without the courage of his convictions, giving a "Like" to comments that are foolish, illogical, hateful and so forth, it is an automatic death sentence for the comments from now on. He said that he was banned from this Page, yet created his account *after* he made that lie. He cannot be bothered to actually comment himself." (Eventually, after I contacted Facebook, he removed the accusation. He has accused me of lying at least once, but has NOT substantiated his accusation as I showed at the BCSE community forum.)
There is plenty of what you call 'emotionally charged rhetoric' on Bob's Facebook page and in his many blog posts, in case you hadn't noticed.
I do NOT try to censor creationists. Nor does Eyeonthe ICR. I agree that Dawkins and Nye avoid debating them. However, whilst not a 'one on one', scientists HAVE recently debated creationists on UK TV (if you can access it, please enjoy):!/2013/0 ... ccept.html (blog entry dated 13 January referring to 'The Big Questions')
I'm adding this attempted reply to the BCSE community forum (which Alex has just visited) and also the thread at EyeontheICR. (I did the same with the comment which you failed in moderation.)

You write a blog which refers to me by name and then censor my replies to your claims. Unbelievable!
Young Earth creationists ALWAYS resort to censorship and bans whenever they are afraid of looking silly, dishonest or ignorant about science. I have been banned or censored by Your Origins Matter, Tas Walker, Tony Breeden and now you (as well as targeted in mostly untruthful hate posts by your friend Mr Sorensen - who clearly needs to grow up).
Thus your claims about me are permitted to 'stand' even though I dealt with them in my second post. And Sorensen is permitted by you to attack me and make assumptions about me once again - whilst I am denied the right of reply. Unfair. Of course, had I made an idiot of myself you would not have needed to apply censorship.
My first censored post also took issue with your claim about Bob Sorensen's blog posts that "I saw no libeling in his blog. Even after reading your timeline on the BCSE forums, I still agree with Bob". I gave THREE examples of his libel of myself and others.
As for Bob's ludicrous claim: "I have some things to point out from the “former Christian” (who has been described as a bitter apostate that cannot connect two logical thoughts”, or something like that, and we have seen the truth in that statement)". I put it to you Mr Petersen that I indeed did connect a number of very logical thoughts in my censored comments - and THAT is why you are censoring me.
Sorensen claims to have 'proven' his claims against me. He is lying (and you are abetting a liar).
For example, see here: ... ecord.html
Where Bob claimed to have documented 'dishonesty' and 'irrationality' on my part, and supplied two links. However, as I said at the time: "Bob evasively lied about whales' vestigial bones and libelled the critic as a 'troll' in his blog of 11 Dec. My comment was correct. Also, I have never denied 'stalking' Bob a little during part of the autumn - he keeps mentioning my open admission of this! Yet in his further text ... he posts to links to places where he claims to have documented dishonesty on my part. So let's look at those links. On the FIRST link he accused me of 'spamming' and falsely accused me of 'blackmail'. He did NOT show any lies on my part. On the SECOND link he complained about me e mailing him, said I had made some assumptions, and referred to 'off-topic harassment' (at in the early autumn). Again, he did NOT show any lies or dishonesty on my part".
I showed this at the BCSE community forum - which Bob is trying to stop his fans accessing. I did so at 1.14 am GMT on 23 December: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3153&start=30
Read my post if you don't believe me.
Bob may not like me reading his blogs and so forth and sometimes criticising them but that does NOT make me a liar. I'm sure you would agree.
On 23 December I wrote at the BCSE (where Bob has been invited to post if he has something to say to me): "I have nothing to hide. If Bob has nothing to hide he will flag the BCSE community forum thread on his blog. If he has something to hide, he will not". I'm still waiting.
Of course, you will not publish this! Because young Earth creationists like you are AFRAID of the truth, afraid of losing face, and determined to mislead the followers of their blogs and online articles.
Thus I will publish this at the British Centre for Science Education (a place where creationists are NOT censored, should you wish to respond there).
Your claim that I show too much 'emotion' is utterly hilarious given that you have simultaneously published the following: "But, like he did at my Amazon book review, he decided to cry and whine, off-topic. Jason summed it up nicely, that is obsession with me is creepy" and "Ashley is so narcissistic, he made the claim that when a post on the Facebook Page was made and signed “Ashley”, that it was me taking pot-shots at him. Uh, no, not only do we have several Admins, but one is a woman named Ashley, and she signs some of her posts. Get over yourself".
Calm down dear.
Your final sentence sounds rather like blackmail and is to be pitied.
Ashley Haworth-Roberts"
(I knew that this would be censored TOO - given the unjust censorship of the preceding post.)

I was also twice censored when I tried to inform Jesse Morton under this blog post that 'Lucy' is NOT a 'fraud' (like Piltdown man was), showing that Petersen is either totally ignorant or else allergic to facts when the people citing them aren't young Earth creationists (probably the latter): ... -creation/
(Morton then corrected HIMSELF - but I was not allowed to do this by Petersen.)
I then tried to ask Morton the following and was AGAIN silently censored by Petersen:
"Jesse Morton
Please inform us on what grounds 'Lucy'/Australopithecus afarensis should now no longer be regarded as a transitional fossil. What has changed?
Ashley Haworth-Roberts"
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:18 pm

This is an example, well-known to many readers of this community forum, of YECs being caught out apparently misrepresenting evidence (at Siccar Point) in the 'Set in Stone' DVD (aimed at school students), being caught out doing so, running away, but never admitting their mistake eg at Paul Garner's blog page, at the BCM website, or at the Truth in Science website (Stephen Moreton sent his comments about inaccuracies in the DVD and flagging his review of it, a DVD co-presented by Garner, to the creationists at TiS).

The comments underneath this, dated from 10 to 20 July 2012 (on the last three pages of comments), should be self-explanatory: ... hisHelpful

Any readers to the (currently inactive) Garner blog would however ONLY see this: ... n-moreton/

Similarly Biblical Creation Ministries have NOT published anything more recent than this on this issue as far as I know:
http://www.biblicalcreationministries.o ... en-moreton
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:28 pm

And another case of gross misrepresentation by a young Earth creationist (CMI call this article a 'teaching tool' and some of it was reasonable):

But Phil Robinson - who was THERE and who poured the water as seen on BBC Three - wrote the following:
"Following our time at Lipan Point, we moved location to Horseshoe Bend, further up the Colorado River, where we did the only experiment in the whole 10 days. The basic premise of the experiment was this: the Colorado river is not a straight river but has some winding bends in it, like this famous example, which Prothero said couldn’t be explained by a flood. A flood, he argued, would have too much energy and would want to cut straight channels, so such bends are best explained by a slow moving river (low energy) moving towards the ocean over low-lying land. Prothero asked me to pour a bucket of water into the sand to show the pattern that the water would make, to see if fast moving water would form bends or carve straight channels. The experiment was a disaster as the water simply sunk straight into the highly porous sand; Prothero said, “Oh dear, that didn’t go as expected” and the ‘experiment’ really made a complete mockery of Prothero’s point. And this was in spite of the fact that he had set the conditions up himself! Why, then, should we trust his word on an event for which he was not there?".

Unfortunately for Robinson although this TV programme is no longer available at BBC iplayer, it IS still available on the BCSE website - see the blog post dated 11 October 2012:
You can watch what ACTUALLY happened at just over nine minutes' in.

Tas Walker implicitly admits that the water which did not sink into the ground flowed straight. Thus his suggestion in his blog post of 19 November that the Prothero experiment was "misleading because it used an inadequate understanding of the magnitude and behaviour of the receding waters" (but I think scientists DO understand how powerful water is when there is a lot of it ie in tsunamis - the receding flood as described in Genesis was NO tsunami).

Some more - rather stupid - comments dated 27 Feb have now appeared under Walker's blog post of 23 Feb. But I also note also that Walker in his comments to me of 25 February stated:
"The rising of the continents [as Noah's Flood receded] was with respect to the ocean."
Yet other YECs - calling upon Psalm 104 - are obliged to say that the Flood could (a) cover ALL land and (b) be contained within the present-day oceans by claiming that straight after the Flood the mountains rose to their present day height (because of catastrophist 'tectonics') and the oceans mysteriously became much deeper ie as deep as today. Tas seems to have forgotten this. So have his stupid admirers it would seem. (His blog post did mention some unbiblical 'orogeny' during or even before the flood - but did not explain such.)

I strongly suspect that defending Genesis convincingly against the evidence from science without ANY manipulation is an impossibility. Thus God must be into fact manipulation, censorship and misrepresentation. Nice.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:04 pm

Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:25 pm

Tas Walker did not show that Gallen et al were wrong. He merely presented a faith-based 'Flood model'.

Yet his idiotic supporters appear not to have noticed. Or if they noticed, they don't care.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:42 pm

I have sent the following email:

'Defending Genesis against science sometimes leads to unethical behaviour by dogmatist Christians'

I'm referring in my title above to young Earth creationists in particular. The behaviour I allude to is mostly some manipulative censorship that can occur when their online claims or questions about science are being fully answered by critics, but they apparently don't like the answers or don't want their supporters to read them.

This link provides full details:

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
PS One of the YEC bloggers mentioned in my link is Tas Walker; I'm grateful that he allowed my latest comment under his blog post of 23 February. I'm also forwarding this message to several friends, most of whom are church attending Christians, and who I believe may also have received the email from Tas Walker that I received this evening (flagging recent blog posts - I am happy to go on receiving his emails incidentally).
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:53 am

I now see that Cowboy Bob is hawking the Walker articles: ... flood.html

He also implies strongly that ANYBODY (including in this case one of the authors of the GSA paper that Tas Walker is latching onto) who may disagree with Walker's rather pseudo-scientific article is one of 'Darwin's Uninformed Insulting Stormtroopers'. Nice.

Sorensen should note that Walker wrote (in response to the comment by Sean Gallen - ONE OF THE SCIENTISTS WHOSE WORK HE WAS TRYING TO EXPLOIT): "You need to resist the temptation toward ad hominem :)".

I therefore trust that Tas Walker will detest, as I do, the absurd Ad hominems and false allegations of this Cowboy blogger from America.

A Cowboy who clearly rather hates science and absolutely loves propaganda for Jesus.

I have just sent a further email:
" ... /#comments
"You need to resist the temptation toward ad hominem :)". (Tas Walker.) ... flood.html
"Note that some of Darwin's Uninformed Insulting Stormtroopers who police the Internet will attempt to put Dr Walker in his place because he does not kowtow to their worldview, therefore he MUST be wrong. Also note that the expected personal attacks are used".
(Bob Sorensen.)

I have flagged this interesting pair of comments at the thread that I linked to in my earlier email (one extra key person is now being copied in as well).

I think I know who it is who really is uniformed and insulting.

And who is complaining about 'personal attacks' under the first Walker blog (dated 23 Feb) whilst simultaneously referring to unnamed 'stormtroopers' who 'police' the internet."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:44 pm
"There are many forums ministries such as this that are not interested in being a place of protection for the believer, but a place of danger where Satan is allowed to rip one’s faith to shreds."
"Any ministry that allows discouragement of it’s followers, and allows atheists to mock God and believers for believing in the word is doing the work of Satan."

But Christians like Issac Bourne censor people for asking the 'wrong' scientific questions as well as for 'mocking' God.

I doubt he would have liked the Premier forum. Too much open debate, not enough reinforcement of anti-scientific dogma by other creationists and fundamentalists?
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:21 pm

Yet another YEC (K Craytor) indulging in blatant censorship of discussion (yesterday) and then trying to justify himself (today): ... LM3O8BYC1V

EDIT - when this thread was originally started there was I seem to recall not yet a 'Conversations with Creationists' section here.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Inconsistent behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:52 am

There is now, so now that you've revived the thread I'll move it there, where it belongs.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Cowardly dishonest behaviour by YEC Christians

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:46 pm

An email that I have just - regrettably - needed to send to YEC blogger, and fan of Ken Ham, Tim Gilleand (author of 'Grace with Salt'): ... omment-517


I replied robustly to your nonsense comments of last night and you appear to have CENSORED my response.

Explanations for a very old universe are logical and parsimonious. Excuses for a 'young' one involve nonsense claims and special pleading by biased, semi-brainwashed religionists.

This goes onto the BCSE community forum as yet another example of the 'cheating' that Ham tried to get away with in the debate (though of course you cannot censor your opponent in a public debate which helps explain why Ham lost last week). When I contact YECs and challenge their nonsense they invariably reach for the 'censor' button (because they clearly do not possess a 'refute' button).

YECs disgust me. It is a cult that makes Christians behave very badly. It necessitates hypocrisy and denial of simple facts. (When simple truth is told to them they normally press the martrydom card and call their many critics 'intolerant' or lacking in 'logic'.)

If YECs are right in their claims and their behaviour then God is an evil ogre and a deceiver who wishes to fool people - and then punish them for being fooled by facts.

However, facts are facts. Viewing facts through a 'biblical lens' may make the facts 'look' different but they are the same FACTS as before. Sorry. The universe is very old and supernovae and the speed of light in a vast but visible universe totally confirm this - observable science and simple mathematics! Ken Ham and his sidekick blatantly lied.

Ken Ham lost the debate and everybody knows it - including him. He also lied, as I have explained above.


PS - a further attempted response:
"Lost the argument Tim? Lost all credibility Tim? Thus - it appears - you act desperately and decide to silently CENSOR my reply to your nonsense comments at 12.08 am on 11.2.14.
Typical arrogant YEC behaviour - which turns reasonable people into bigots."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests