"Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament"

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[smoodock]

Smoo:
I loved the way you compared our world of modern communication with an illiterate society 2,000 years ago. After such comparisons, it's really hard to take any of your posts seriously.

Well, Howie, you thought it was serious enough to offer a reply. If I was that bad, ignoring me may have been a more appropriate choice.

The writers of the Synoptics do not have to be dependent upon one another or a “Q” document. Often the disciples discussed things Jesus said and did, while they were travelling and again when they returned to “the house” in Capernaum. The repetitive rehearsing of what occurred through dialogue with one another would have helped lay the foundation of a very accurate oral tradition of what was said and done by Jesus.

The gospel writers drew on oral traditions for their source material. It makes sense that each writer would have selected some things and rejected others. They would organize their material based on some principle they chose. They would also find it necessary at times to offer explanations about the events.

Seeing the similarities among the synoptics regarding the material chosen, their order of presentation, the choice of words even in the explanatory comments, especially when viewed as large blocks of material,  have led most to believe there is more than a coincidental relationship between them.

As you noted, all three writers might have been familiar with a number of stories and sayings of Jesus that had been widely circulated and would, therefore, be expected to make use of them in their Gospels. What such an exposure does not account for is high degree of similarity in the sequence of the material. When two stories are presented that are independent of chronology but appear in two different Gospels in the same order and content, it strongly suggests that they have a literary relationship. For example, between Mark 13 and 16 there are 38 narrative units of events or teachings. 34 of them appear with the same content and sequence in Matthew 24-27. In some cases, these units appear in all three synoptics in the same sequence.

And this proves what? …that one copied from another one? Is there no alternative to believing one Gospel writer copied from another Gospel writer? Are you saying that all conceivable arguments have been addressed and what you are saying here MUST be the truth?

There is also a substantial agreement in the wording among the synoptics. Although two Gospel writers could agree on the material from the oral tradition to be used, it is not likely that they would use the same wording in the narratives they use. Nevertheless, there is a close agreement in the common use of words, grammar, and order of the words themselves; some times it's verbatim. One example would be Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. Out of some 30 words in the passage, one word, one, differs. How likely would such identical passages be recorded from an Oral tradition?

When I was in 8th grade one of our class projects was to memorize verbatim the Gettysburg Address. Most of us were able to do it—a few had learning problems. The point is, part of an oral tradition is memorization. Yet, even this does not disallow the apostles to have kept a running journal of their activities with Jesus.

The comparison of their composition, content, sequence, and wording, with all drawing on an oral tradition over decades, should lead one to believe that they have a relationship. An oral tradition alone would not account for such agreement. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that one of them was written first and been a source for another. As to which came first and who relied on whom, that is the synoptic problem.

On another board you accused me of being “disingenuous” and in short not having any evidence for what I was proposing. What do you propose here to show that the ‘oral tradition’ extended over decades before anything was written down?

Each Gospel writer had a theme in mind. He chose what accounts of Jesus’ deeds and what teachings he wished to place into his work, and the whole told the story in a manner that that particular Gospel writer had in mind. Having said that, what makes you believe his work is his private “invention”? That is, he wrote it (or copied parts) and when it was done, he made a lot of other copies and began distributing them to the churches?” There is reason to believe that every Gospel writer had to have his work approved by the “witnesses” before it could be used by the churches. Nothing was a “one man” deal here. It was a collective effort even, if a single person had the bright idea all by himself.

If you were to interview any of us 8th graders who had memorized the Gettysburg Address and asked us to repeat some of what we learned, you most likely would get a word-for-word replication whether you interviewed us together or in separate rooms. The idea here is what was written down was taken from eye-witnesses, and not just witnesses that you might collect after a traffic accident, but these witnesses had for three and a half years been rehearsing what Jesus had said and done even before he had died. There wasn’t one of them who couldn’t correct a wrong understanding or phrase that might have slipped through from the witness to the writer of the Gospel. The end document would have had to have been approved before it was copied and recopied and distributed among the believing groups. This is only logical, but it also has Scriptural support, as I had tried to communicate in my post above.

[Howiedds]

Smoo:

Well, Howie, you thought it was serious enough to offer a reply. If I was that bad, ignoring me may have been a more appropriate choice.

As you wish.

[SteveC]

Yet, even this does not disallow the apostles to have kept a running journal of their activities with Jesus.

Why would they? They had no clue about what was to come or how it would all end. If what you are saying is true, why do we have only four Gospels?

On another board you accused me of being “disingenuous” and in short not having any evidence for what I was proposing. What do you propose here to show that the ‘oral tradition’ extended over decades before anything was written down?

Again, why would the apostles write anything after Jesus' death? They all thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Producing anything for posterity would be stupid. It's only after the Apostles died, that there became an urgency to write things down and to atribute these stories postumously to the apostles.

There is reason to believe that every Gospel writer had to have his work approved by the “witnesses” before it could be used by the churches. Nothing was a “one man” deal here. It was a collective effort even, if a single person had the bright idea all by himself

.

Lol, I can just hear it now - (imagine Richard Simmons voice)  listen Jews and Gentiles, we went to such extremes to bring this story to you. We searchered every nook and cranny, my specialty(giggle, giggle), and I have to tell you , I'm so pleased that this is the god's honest truth. Oh, we had such great witnesses, everybody put your hands together and give our witnesses a big round of applause.......................................

, but these witnesses had for three and a half years been rehearsing what Jesus had said and done even before he had died.

Absolute nonsense, show me scriptural support that they knew they had an important job to do, that they knew they were going to carry Jesus' message to the masses, or that they knew they were going to outlive Jesus.

There wasn’t one of them who couldn’t correct a wrong understanding or phrase that might have slipped through from the witness to the writer of the Gospel. The end document would have had to have been approved before it was copied and recopied and distributed among the believing groups. This is only logical, but it also has Scriptural support, as I had tried to communicate in my post above.

Give me a break! you forgot to add that they all studied journalism at Harvard

[smoodock]

Smoo:

Yet, even this does not disallow the apostles to have kept a running journal of their activities with Jesus.

Steve:
Why would they? They had no clue about what was to come or how it would all end. If what you are saying is true, why do we have only four Gospels?

If they had no clue about what was to come or how it would end, then this would be all the more reason to keep a record.

As for why only four Gospels, the book of Revelation speaks of four winds—north, south, east and west. The Gospel goes out to the four quarters of the earth. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of a coming King, Prophet, Priest and God. There are many reasons why there are only four.



Smoo:
 

On another board you accused me of being “disingenuous” and in short not having any evidence for what I was proposing. What do you propose here to show that the ‘oral tradition’ extended over decades before anything was written down?

Steve:
Again, why would the apostles write anything after Jesus' death? They all thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Producing anything for posterity would be stupid. It's only after the Apostles died, that there became an urgency to write things down and to atribute these stories postumously to the apostles.

Whether or not they believed Jesus would return in their lifetime has no bearing upon whether or not they should write down a record of what occurred. There were only 12 of them, and what they had to say had to reach the entire world—at least the then known world. They couldn’t be everywhere at once, copies of their witness left with each body of believers makes logical sense.



Smoo:
 

There is reason to believe that every Gospel writer had to have his work approved by the “witnesses” before it could be used by the churches. Nothing was a “one man” deal here. It was a collective effort even, if a single person had the bright idea all by himself

Steve:
Lol, I can just hear it now - (imagine Richard Simmons voice)  listen Jews and Gentiles, we went to such extremes to bring this story to you. We searchered every nook and cranny, my specialty(giggle, giggle), and I have to tell you , I'm so pleased that this is the god's honest truth. Oh, we had such great witnesses, everybody put your hands together and give our witnesses a big round of applause.......................................

You may imagine whatever or whomever you please, Acts 15 shows how serious the original body of believers felt about having a single, pure message reach everyone—Gentile or Jew.



Smoo:
 

, but these witnesses had for three and a half years been rehearsing what Jesus had said and done even before he had died.

Steve:
Absolute nonsense, show me scriptural support that they knew they had an important job to do, that they knew they were going to carry Jesus' message to the masses, or that they knew they were going to outlive Jesus.

It was part of what they did. They even discussed what the Pharisees believed and asked Jesus how what they said fit what he was saying. A rabbi expected his disciples to learn what he taught. A student learned what the master said and did and tried to emulate it. Jesus sent them out on their own, preaching to different towns what they heard him say. They discussed things among themselves, asked Jesus questions about things they didn’t understand, he corrected what was misunderstood, and they went out on evangelism exercises. Before they were through, Herod Antipas heard about what was going on and he wanted to see Jesus. His whole realm was buzzing  about what Jesus (through his disciples) was saying and doing.



Smoo:
 

There wasn’t one of them who couldn’t correct a wrong understanding or phrase that might have slipped through from the witness to the writer of the Gospel. The end document would have had to have been approved before it was copied and recopied and distributed among the believing groups. This is only logical, but it also has Scriptural support, as I had tried to communicate in my post above.

Steve:
Give me a break! you forgot to add that they all studied journalism at Harvard

I never implied Harvard or even Yale. If something is learned as an eye-witness and then recalled through lengthy and repeated discussion, question and answer sessions and then trained through evangelistic excursions,  one doesn’t need to be a Harvard graduate to understand that those who had done such things would have thoroughly learned what their teacher had in mind.

[SteveC]

Edited: personal attack

[Lilly]

The writers of the Synoptics do not have to be dependent upon one another or a “Q” document. Often the disciples discussed things Jesus said and did, while they were travelling and again when they returned to “the house” in Capernaum. The repetitive rehearsing of what occurred through dialogue with one another would have helped lay the foundation of a very accurate oral tradition of what was said and done by Jesus. Jesus also often questioned the disciples about what they discussed among themselves and about specific things he had said or done. He answered questions they had and defined terms he used in parables. There seems to be a very reasonable argument that the disciples of this Rabbi remembered, wrote down and taught what Jesus’ said and did with great accuracy.

I agree, and think you make some good points.  Jesus brought an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that had not been taught before.  The apostles understood the teaching and passed it on.  No big mystery there.  Those looking for a Q document are simply looking for an excuse not to believe the inspired teaching of Jesus.

Shoot, modern Jews believe their oral tradition was handed down at Sinai, and although even the books of the law were lost for a time and subsequently had to be reread to the people, they believe they perserved the oral tradition accurately for thousands of years. 

[SteveC]

Edited: personal attack

I put a lot of thought into that personal attack. It could have stayed posted for at least 5 minutes.

[SteveC]

Smoo:

Yet, even this does not disallow the apostles to have kept a running journal of their activities with Jesus.

Steve:
Why would they? They had no clue about what was to come or how it would all end. If what you are saying is true, why do we have only four Gospels?

If they had no clue about what was to come or how it would end, then this would be all the more reason to keep a record.[/quote]

The apostles didn't know they were going to have a mission to spread the word after Jesus' death. They ran away and hid after Jesus' death. Where are the original documents, in the apostles own language?

As for why only four Gospels, the book of Revelation speaks of four winds—north, south, east and west. The Gospel goes out to the four quarters of the earth. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of a coming King, Prophet, Priest and God. There are many reasons why there are only four.

That's more like a childish excuse rather than a logical reason. I supposed they wrote on paper because the world was flat also.

Whether or not they believed Jesus would return in their lifetime has no bearing upon whether or not they should write down a record of what occurred. There were only 12 of them, and what they had to say had to reach the entire world—at least the then known world. They couldn’t be everywhere at once, copies of their witness left with each body of believers makes logical sense.

This does not make sense. Again, they didn't know they were to have a mission, and they thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes. They thought Jesus would carry the load. And you can't tell me the apostles believed they could reach the entire world in their lifetimes, considering that Jesus would soon return and considering their limited technology.

"the entire world—at least the then known world" - nice little cop-out. Is Jesus the world's savior, or isn't he?

It was part of what they did. They even discussed what the Pharisees believed and asked Jesus how what they said fit what he was saying. A rabbi expected his disciples to learn what he taught. A student learned what the master said and did and tried to emulate it. Jesus sent them out on their own, preaching to different towns what they heard him say. They discussed things among themselves, asked Jesus questions about things they didn’t understand, he corrected what was misunderstood, and they went out on evangelism exercises. Before they were through, Herod Antipas heard about what was going on and he wanted to see Jesus. His whole realm was buzzing  about what Jesus (through his disciples) was saying and doing.

I believe you over estimate the effect Jesus had on the "realm". The evidence is that so few Jews converted, that the mission turned to the Gentiles to save the religion.

[smoodock]

The writers of the Synoptics do not have to be dependent upon one another or a “Q” document. Often the disciples discussed things Jesus said and did, while they were travelling and again when they returned to “the house” in Capernaum. The repetitive rehearsing of what occurred through dialogue with one another would have helped lay the foundation of a very accurate oral tradition of what was said and done by Jesus. Jesus also often questioned the disciples about what they discussed among themselves and about specific things he had said or done. He answered questions they had and defined terms he used in parables. There seems to be a very reasonable argument that the disciples of this Rabbi remembered, wrote down and taught what Jesus’ said and did with great accuracy.

I agree, and think you make some good points.  Jesus brought an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that had not been taught before.  The apostles understood the teaching and passed it on.  No big mystery there.  Those looking for a Q document are simply looking for an excuse not to believe the inspired teaching of Jesus.

Shoot, modern Jews believe their oral tradition was handed down at Sinai, and although even the books of the law were lost for a time and subsequently had to be reread to the people, they believe they perserved the oral tradition accurately for thousands of years. 

Thank you Lilly. I appreciate your post, and I agree that if ‘oral’ tradition can be taken seriously where there is no concrete evidence of it for thousands of years, there is no compelling reason for all this hullabaloo  over the accuracy of oral tradition that many are willing to admit occurred for only 30 to 50 years before it was written down.

[smoodock]

The apostles didn't know they were going to have a mission to spread the word after Jesus' death. They ran away and hid after Jesus' death. Where are the original documents, in the apostles own language?

Jesus often told the disciples what they were to do after he was gone (Matthew 10:27, 32) Many of his parables emphasize faithfulness to duty while Jesus is away. The fact the diciples didn’t understand what Jesus meant by a resurrection has no bearing on whether or not they had been prepared by their Rabbi to witness to the world concerning what he had said and done.

Concerning the original manuscripts, much of Mark’s original oral tradition can be found out simply by translating it back into Hebrew. It has been found out that part of the reason for Mark’s poor Greek is the fact that he translated the sayings of Peter into Greek by retaining the Hebraic order of words. Order of words is not important in Greek, but it is in the Hebrew, at least this is what I am told.



Smoo:

As for why only four Gospels, the book of Revelation speaks of four winds—north, south, east and west. The Gospel goes out to the four quarters of the earth. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of a coming King, Prophet, Priest and God. There are many reasons why there are only four.

Steve:
That's more like a childish excuse rather than a logical reason. I supposed they wrote on paper because the world was flat also.

You asked a question, and I responded.  That said, believe as you wish.



Smoo:

Whether or not they believed Jesus would return in their lifetime has no bearing upon whether or not they should write down a record of what occurred. There were only 12 of them, and what they had to say had to reach the entire world—at least the then known world. They couldn’t be everywhere at once, copies of their witness left with each body of believers makes logical sense.

Steve:
This does not make sense. Again, they didn't know they were to have a mission, and they thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes. They thought Jesus would carry the load. And you can't tell me the apostles believed they could reach the entire world in their lifetimes, considering that Jesus would soon return and considering their limited technology.

"the entire world—at least the then known world" - nice little cop-out. Is Jesus the world's savior, or isn't he?

You have presumed your entire reply. You have not shown that the apostles didn’t know they had a mission or that they delayed carrying out Jesus’ orders “knowing” he would return soon and take up the load. All you have done is say these things are so.

Matthew 28:19-20 gives the commission to the world. Jesus also told them long before his crucifixion that they were to preach to all Israel even saying they would be persecuted in doing so (Matthew 10:23).

Concerning my “cop-out”, there is absolutely no reason for believing the apostles knew about the western hemisphere. All of Jesus’ commands involved going to the civilized world. What Jesus commanded the disciples did. That we continue to evangelize the world may be construed as part of the commission, but I believe it has more to do with Jesus’ parables of the pounds and talents—what we have gained through trading. The apostles witnessed to the world just as Jesus commanded. There is no reason to believe it must be down twice, three times or more. Our evangelistic work has to do with being faithful to the spirit of the Gospel to tell others about the treasure we have found. All Christians don’t see the commission in this way, but that is okay, I still believe we have a moral responsibility to carry Jesus to places he is not known.

I believe you over estimate the effect Jesus had on the "realm". The evidence is that so few Jews converted, that the mission turned to the Gentiles to save the religion.

On the contrary, I believe it is estimated that the gentiles didn’t outnumber the Jewish believers in Christ until well into the 2nd century.

[Acumen]

Edited: personal attack

I put a lot of thought into that personal attack. It could have stayed posted for at least 5 minutes.

How long was it?

[Deacon777]

Jesus brought an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that had not been taught before.  The apostles understood the teaching and passed it on.  No big mystery there.  Those looking for a Q document are simply looking for an excuse not to believe the inspired teaching of Jesus.

What?? Why is there this assumption that any attempt to explain how the gospels came to be is somehow rooted in some sort of anti-christian conspiracy?

Yes we know there was an oral tradition. But we also know that oral tradition wasn't written down in the form of the four gospels until decades after Jesus died. Whose to say the "inspired teachings of Jesus" were not originally recorded in some ancient text lost to antiquity?

There is a LOT of the "inspired teachings of Jesus" not in the gospel of Mark. Yet many of these missing parables and sayings in Mark are in both Matthew and Luke, albeit not in identical form. How did they get there? Where did they come from?

If you believe (as I do) that Jesus really did say those things, and they were part of the oral tradition that did NOT find its way to Mark, then it is not unreasonable to think that there may have been another written text in circulation - not in the gospel genre (Mark would invent that genre) but in the ancient form of a list of sayings or teachings (similar to the gospel of Thomas format). That format was actually very common back then.

I think the objection to "Q" is really an objection to the sausage-making that went into the gospels as we have them today. It was a process, IMO all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that produced what we have today. Q is a theory, but it isn't just an explanation of the synoptic problem, it is also deduced from textual criticism of NT text.

Whether Q actually existed or not, for the life of me I cannot see how that has anything to do with believing or disbelieving Matthew and Luke as the "inspired teaching of Jesus." 

Shoot, modern Jews believe their oral tradition was handed down at Sinai, and although even the books of the law were lost for a time and subsequently had to be reread to the people, they believe they perserved the oral tradition accurately for thousands of years. 

True. But the Hebrew scriptures evolved over time - their final form was the result of a process just like the NT. 

[Howiedds]

Deacon:

Why is there this assumption that any attempt to explain how the gospels came to be is somehow rooted in some sort of anti-christian conspiracy?

What you are running into, Deacon, is the nose of the camel problem that appears here so often. Heaven forbid that any theory is suggested that just might lead to some question about the origin of the Gospel accounts or their dependence on each other, and some are so threatened that they have to nip that sucker in the bud. Not an iota of consideration dared be spared.

[Lilly]

Jesus brought an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that had not been taught before.  The apostles understood the teaching and passed it on.  No big mystery there.  Those looking for a Q document are simply looking for an excuse not to believe the inspired teaching of Jesus.

What?? Why is there this assumption that any attempt to explain how the gospels came to be is somehow rooted in some sort of anti-christian conspiracy?

Who said anything about an anti-Christian conspiracy?  I certainly didn't.

Yes we know there was an oral tradition. But we also know that oral tradition wasn't written down in the form of the four gospels until decades after Jesus died. Whose to say the "inspired teachings of Jesus" were not originally recorded in some ancient text lost to antiquity?

There's no evidence that's the case, but if you want to believe it, go ahead.

There is a LOT of the "inspired teachings of Jesus" not in the gospel of Mark. Yet many of these missing parables and sayings in Mark are in both Matthew and Luke, albeit not in identical form. How did they get there? Where did they come from?

My belief is that they came from Jesus' apostles as they recalled his teachings and as they were led by the Spirit of God to take his message to the ends of the earth.  Matthew tells us that Jesus commanded his apostles, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The apostles, through their witness, have made disciple of Christ from all nations.  Is this because of some Q document?  Or is it because of what Jesus promised?  Was it by the happenstance of man, or by the power of God?

If you believe (as I do) that Jesus really did say those things, and they were part of the oral tradition that did NOT find its way to Mark, then it is not unreasonable to think that there may have been another written text in circulation - not in the gospel genre (Mark would invent that genre) but in the ancient form of a list of sayings or teachings (similar to the gospel of Thomas format). That format was actually very common back then.

Let's see...  those who discredit the idea that Matthew and Luke were written by Matthew and Luke for the purpose of passing on the teachings of Jesus, now want to believe in an unseen Q document written earlier by an unknown author to explain the teachings of Matthew and Luke.  Maybe Matthew and Luke wrote the Q document?  You don't know for certain that Mark invented the gospel genre, nor that his written text was the first to be written.  That's all theory.  As a Christian, none of it means a thing to me.  Jesus said his teachings would go to the ends of the earth, to all nations before the end of the age, and his teachings have, not only by word of mouth but also through the written word.  That's incredible enough for me. 

I think the objection to "Q" is really an objection to the sausage-making that went into the gospels as we have them today. It was a process, IMO all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that produced what we have today. Q is a theory, but it isn't just an explanation of the synoptic problem, it is also deduced from textual criticism of NT text.

I would not label the idea that God sent a message to the nations through Jesus as sausage-making.  The only ones making it into sausage are those who don't believe the message.  I also don't see a synoptic problem.  I see no need for textual criticism of the NT.  All these are to provide doubt about the validity of the message.  Nothing more.

Shoot, modern Jews believe their oral tradition was handed down at Sinai, and although even the books of the law were lost for a time and subsequently had to be reread to the people, they believe they perserved the oral tradition accurately for thousands of years. 

True. But the Hebrew scriptures evolved over time - their final form was the result of a process just like the NT. 

Oral tradition is quite different from the written Scriptures.  Hebrew Scriptures did not evolve over time.  They were written down.  Interpretation of what was written may have evolved, but it's my understanding that Jews believe the oral understanding of their written Scriptures were given to them at Sinai along with the written Scripture, and there has been no change in that understanding.  If you believe that God has given man understanding through either the prophets or through Christ, whether Jew or Christian, then that understanding cannot change.  It's from God.  God doesn't change.  God's truth doesn't evolve.

[Lilly]

Deacon:

Why is there this assumption that any attempt to explain how the gospels came to be is somehow rooted in some sort of anti-christian conspiracy?

What you are running into, Deacon, is the nose of the camel problem that appears here so often. Heaven forbid that any theory is suggested that just might lead to some question about the origin of the Gospel accounts or their dependence on each other, and some are so threatened that they have to nip that sucker in the bud. Not an iota of consideration dared be spared.

If the camel you are speaking of is disbelief in God, then it's true that the rejection of God and his teachings will not be entertained by those who seek to remain faithful to Him.  The Gospels give us an understanding of how we have been brought into the family of God.  If this understanding is from the mind of man and not God, then it is worthless.  But if it is from God, then we do not look for ways to discredit what he has revealed to us.  In my view theories to discredit the message come from men who are looking for ways to justify their disbelief. 

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC