Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    If this was the Super Bowl of creationism/evolution debates. Then we just watched two junior high football teams on the biggest stage.

    Hamm has a bachelors degree in Applied Science
    Nye has a bachelors degree in Engineering.

    There are more qualified people to debate these topics.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

      Can I have an example where a species has evolved to create an entirely new species?
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Sure it is. Science disproves the Earth is flat. Disproves the our solar system doesn't revolve around the Earth. There are countless scientific theories that were thought to be factual, that science has disproven.
        Right. What I'm saying is, science in practice is about testing for things or gathering evidence for things, THEN logically if you can safely assume something, you can then use logic and reason to say what is NOT true about that subject as well. But I thought that the actual scientific work done was more about seeing what is, rather than what isn't?

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          (to Hicks)
          Why isn't science about disproving? The whole process is more about seeking evidence that would disprove something than it is about seeking evidence that would ever prove something, IMO. The potential for being dis-provable is critical.

          Example: Einstein said that due to general relativity, light rays must be bent by gravitational forces, such as the sun, at twice the amount that Newton's laws allow (described here: http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...ght_deflection )

          the test: measure the deflection during a solar eclipse (see link above)

          Possible results:
          one result would disprove Newton and be consistent with general relativity
          another result would disprove general relativity and be consistent with Newton
          any other result would disprove both theories

          actual result: the deflection was consistent with general relativity, disproving Newton

          Math has proofs. Emperical science though relies on the absence of disproof where disproof is possible, as strange as that may sound. General relativity has not been proven. All experiments to date have been consistent with its predictions, though, and thus it is accepted to be true.
          Well, now, wait a minute. Aren't you someone who likes to say something like "I can't prove there isn't a polka dot purple dragon" when the topic is about the existence of God? How you can't prove the negative? So which is it?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

            Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
            Here is the thing, though, as a scientist my job is to be impartial. I really should have no emotional attachment to my research. If there were to ever be any evidence against evolution then I would gladly take a look at it and reevaluate my trust in the theory. But I have yet to find that.
            Maybe you are excellent at holding to that mindset, but my experiences tell me many people do not hold to it. Not scientists, not people who work in law, not most people. Humans make exceptions for themselves and others, for a variety of reasons.

            You can make arguments against MACRO-evolution. Large scale evolution of all species from a common ancestor, but almost the entirety of the biomedical field is based around microevolution.
            This is something that still fascinates me. I hear a lot of mixed statements from people regarding macroevoluation. Some say there's plenty of evidence, some say there's none, and I have no idea whatsoever who to trust on that.

            There are two things I'm noticing about this debate from a scientist perspective (agnostic) and remembering how I felt as a teenager (christian god, but very into philosophy/science);

            1) People are fundamentally misunderstanding the mechanisms of natural selection. When I say survival of the "fittest," what I mean is survival of the one with the most offspring. "Fitness" in biology terms means offspring. Most people interpret that to mean, literally, survival of the biggest and strongest. That is not always the case. Mutations lead to either decreased or increased adaptability and thus mutations are context based. (I.E. my sickle cell example)
            Sort of. I mean I get that it's not about which animal has the most 80's action star body or whatever, but rather who can stick around long enough to make the most babies, but that's still going to come down to how well you can live and prosper in your environment because you can't make lots of babies if you're dead or too weak to mate. So there is still a dimension of strength and weaknesses to it, from a certain point of view.

            2) There is also a fundamental misunderstanding on what science actually is.
            How do you define science? Because one thing I've noticed over the years is I'll hear people say "I believe in science". That always kinda bothered me. Because I thought science was essentially a well-thought-out METHOD of studying things and reaching intelligent assumptions based on those studies, and yet some people act like whatever science says in *insert time stamp here*, that's just the ultimate truth about everything, and they cling to it like the religious cling to their doctrines. It's a belief system to some, and I don't get that. Science isn't supposed to be about beliefs, as I understand it. Science, I thought, is about observation, documentation, and accountability.

            Let me also state that I don't see any real difficulty allowing both beliefs to propagate and combine. Honestly, the question of why the big bang happened is still a question no one can answer. Perhaps religion can shed some light on that because science can't at the moment. My issue is that creationism isn't a scientifically observed doctrine and as such should not be taught as science. What is creationisms solution to anti-biotic resistance of bacteria? Cancer? Alzheimers? The main goal of science education is to train students to be innovative in finding solutions to these problems.
            I think they can mesh on some levels. But when you have a religion making claims that go against what scientific research has taught us, it can't work.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

              Originally posted by kester99 View Post
              Yes, in the bold font I put in your quote, that's what I was trying to express...an essentially blind but elegant mechanism trundling along...'guidance' coming only from the bumps and dips of the environment.

              Now, to take it to the next inevitable step...Who designed the mechanism?? I think that will be asked / has been asked elsewhere. To me, we must remember that the forest has all the types of trees, existing simultaneously, and (zooming out again) that this evolutionary mechanism which we describe as a separate theory from all the other theories and laws is in fact one facet of the ongoing universe, working hand in glove with gravity, thermodynamics, chaos theory, you name it. All of these mechanisms working together, on all 'parts' of the universe / reality, making up this one biggest clockwork...well, that's what I would call God. But you can use whatever word you want. It is that it is. (Go Spinoza*.)


              * ,,,except Spinoza beieved this God / reality to be impersonal, and I think that is not necessarily the last word on that.
              Right, I feel like the universe is awfully damned organized to have merely come from chaos, but that's just me.

              As to whether God is personal or impersonal, God seems at least mostly impersonal to me. I have a theory on why that's not a bad thing, but nonetheless.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post


                This is the artist rendering of the skull they found that's 2.5m years old. Outside of the nose, looks like my neighbor down the street.
                How could they know what the nostrils would look like?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Well, now, wait a minute. Aren't you someone who likes to say something like "I can't prove there isn't a polka dot purple dragon" when the topic is about the existence of God? How you can't prove the negative? So which is it?
                  If you make an assertion that no evidence could ever disprove/falsify, that is not a scientific assertion.

                  (For example, "there is an invisible and undetectable God/Polka-Dot Dragon/Flying Spaghetti Monster that set in motion/"designed" every observable event in the universe's history.)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                    Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                    If you make an assertion that no evidence could ever disprove/falsify, that is not a scientific assertion.

                    (For example, "there is an invisible and undetectable God/Polka-Dot Dragon/Flying Spaghetti Monster that set in motion/"designed" every observable event in the universe's history.)
                    How does one decide whether or not there is any evidence that could ever disprove/falsify an assertion? For that matter, this reminds me of how people argue over what is or is not evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      How does one decide whether or not there is any evidence that could ever disprove/falsify an assertion? For that matter, this reminds me of how people argue over what is or is not evidence.
                      Just see if you can come up with something. What evidence could disprove the claim that everything that exists was created by an invisible and undetectable being? I suggest that there is no way to disprove this, and therefore the claim is not scientific.

                      On the other hand, take the claim that "the world is 6,000 years old." What evidence could falsify this claim? Well, we might find material on Earth that is older than 6,000 years old. Which we did. So that was a scientific statement.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                        Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                        Just see if you can come up with something. What evidence could disprove the claim that everything that exists was created by an invisible and undetectable being? I suggest that there is no way to disprove this, and therefore the claim is not scientific.

                        On the other hand, take the claim that "the world is 6,000 years old." What evidence could falsify this claim? Well, we might find material on Earth that is older than 6,000 years old. Which we did. So that was a scientific statement.
                        I understand. I'm just pointing out that what may seem impossible now, or to one person, may not seem impossible later, or to someone else.

                        I mean just as a hypothetical (an understatement, I realize), let's say some near death experiences are real, and people really are more than their physical bodies, and that whatever's still there when the body dies really does live on in some other form of existence, and that part of that existence is having the ability to communicate with something we might consider to be God (as is the claim of numerous people who have NDEs), meaning in this case God is real. Let's also say that some mediums really do communicate with people who have had their physical bodies die (but still exist, because in this scenario remember people are more than just physical form as we know it). Well, then you're left with a chain of theoretical communication here, between God and someone who is 'dead', the 'dead' with the medium, and the medium with other living people. Suddenly you're 'talking to God', so to speak. Goes without saying that it's way easier to theorize than to prove, but that's one possibility, no matter how unlikely one might believe it to be.

                        Or maybe the whole point of physical existence is to not be able to see behind the curtain, and when we're 'on the other side' we know that, but knowing it now would ruin the experience of being here?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I feel like the universe is awfully damned organized to have merely come from chaos...
                          But at the highest level, the one all-encompassing reality, the pattern of everything, and chaos, would be one and the same. Or what we see as chaotic is merely lack of viewpoint on our part to see the larger pattern.

                          So I would have to say that, to me, the intelligent design / naturally-occuring-scientifically-measurable-process contoversy is ultimately a false dichotomy stemming from lack of perspective.
                          Last edited by kester99; 02-08-2014, 04:21 PM.


                          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            This is something that still fascinates me. I hear a lot of mixed statements from people regarding macroevoluation. Some say there's plenty of evidence, some say there's none, and I have no idea whatsoever who to trust on that.
                            What I meant by that is that I personally believe it to be enough evidence, but there is nothing full proof to me and it is still reasonable to argue. Whereas microevolution I work with on a daily basis and have seen demonstrated multiple times and have little doubts of it's truth as it is the foundation of medical science.

                            Sort of. I mean I get that it's not about which animal has the most 80's action star body or whatever, but rather who can stick around long enough to make the most babies, but that's still going to come down to how well you can live and prosper in your environment because you can't make lots of babies if you're dead or too weak to mate. So there is still a dimension of strength and weaknesses to it, from a certain point of view.
                            It's all about circumstance. Like I said, people with sickle cell disease are characterized as a "weak" grouping of people due to a single mutation that makes their red blood cells into an odd shape. In the modern world, a life expectancy of 45 and a lifetime of sickness isn't much of an advantage and doesn't allow them to be more "fit" than a normal population, but in africa hundreds or thousands of years ago 45 wasn't a bad life expectancy. Especially when you consider that they are immune to malaria which until recently was a HUGE selective force on human populations.

                            Lets think about it as a thought experiment. If I have 10 people and 2 people have sickle cell disease (immunity to malaria) and every generation 30% of the population dies due to malaria, what happens?

                            10*.30 = 7 people left in our population and 2 of them must have sickle cell

                            so in one generation the population of people with this "weak" genes goes from 20% to 29% and the people with the "good" genes go from 80% to 50%. This will continue to grow upwards as each generation continues. This is my point. There is no such thing as a "bad" mutation or a "good" mutation without a context attached to it. It's circumstantial and based around the environment not the difference between "weakness" and "strongness."

                            How do you define science? Because one thing I've noticed over the years is I'll hear people say "I believe in science". That always kinda bothered me. Because I thought science was essentially a well-thought-out METHOD of studying things and reaching intelligent assumptions based on those studies, and yet some people act like whatever science says in *insert time stamp here*, that's just the ultimate truth about everything, and they cling to it like the religious cling to their doctrines. It's a belief system to some, and I don't get that. Science isn't supposed to be about beliefs, as I understand it. Science, I thought, is about observation, documentation, and accountability.
                            Personally, I don't like that sort of attitude. You're exactly right that science isn't supposed to be a belief system. It's not to me and it's not to a lot of people, but I see what you're getting at. The need for people to be condescending towards other's for their beliefs IMO shows alack of wanting to know "truth" and more wanting to avoid insecurity in their own beliefs. I really have little to no time for it and the charged nature of these debates is usually why I avoid them. But this forum is one of the best, most civilized forums I've come across on the internet so I figured it would not divulge into that sort of childish name calling.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                              What do you feel is/are the key evidence to support macroevolution?

                              I see what your point is about sickle cell disease and how weakness/strength can be relative. Context always matters, so to me I just kind of took that as a given, I guess. I'd also think it's not always quite that relative, either, such as when you're born with non-functioning limbs or you're naturally infertile or something like that. It's not always that easily 'flip-able'.

                              As to condescending attitudes, it's usually insecurity, narcissism, impatience, or a combination of them.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                                https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qua...heory-of-life/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X