Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: A civil conversation...

Hybrid View

  1. -1
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks

    A civil conversation...

    Spyder and I have decided to start a new thread for our conversation about the existence of God (YHWH). I have posted his first response to my questions below. If anyone else would like to jump in please do, let’s keep this discussion cordial and civil though. I think it should be a lot of fun.

    Here is Spyder’s response to my questions about what he meant by evidence and if we’d be able to know anything at all if God didn’t exist.

    If Back to it...

    By evidence I mean anything that would hold up in a laboratory or a courtroom. Anything that someone who wasn't indoctrinated from birth would be able to believe rationally.

    I will now address your question. If God didn't exist would we be able to know anything at all?

    My answer is yes, without doubt. God doesn't exist and yet the human brain still works. The human brain functions through a complex series of electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, etc. You can quite easily trace the evolution of the human brain all the way back to fish and it lines up beautifully.

    Upon answering your question and clarifying my own, I still want to know if you think there is any more evidence for the existence of your god vs. Krishna, Allah, Santa Claus, etc.
    My response…

    1. I am not sure the question of whether God exists or not is something that could be answered in a laboratory, I can’t really conceive of a “test for God” you could conduct in any such environment. As for a courtroom, are you saying that we the people as the jury determine whether or not God exists and as long as a majority or consensus of us believe He does exist then He does? I guess I am not quite following you on that one either. I agree with your last criteria though, I think that a rational person could arrive at the belief in God without being indoctrinated. In fact, I think a very strong case could be that rationality requires a person to believe in the God of scripture, a case that I hope to make throughout our discussion.
    2. A. Addressing your points about the Human brain; how do you know the human brain functions in a manner that accurately reflects reality? More precisely, how do you know that what you sense to be real is indeed real and your ability to reason accurately discerns what is true? In a Universe that is purely natural and material I do not understand how you can have any confidence that your brain has evolved in a manner that accurately depicts reality. As a Christian I can have confidence that my brain depicts reality because I am the creation of a rational God who desires for me to learn about Him and His creation.
    B. Now about your point about Humans and Fish, I am not aware of any such lineage being traceable; could you be a bit more specific on how a person can trace the evolution of the Human brain from that of a Fish’s? Thanks.
    3. Yes, I believe there is proof for the existence of YHWH as opposed to other gods and Santa. In order to not get off topic though I’d like to store that discussion away for a little bit if you don’t mind and continue to focus on what you believe (naturalism) and what I believe (Christianity). Fair enough?
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    12,183
    vCash:
    9423
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I've always have a simple retort to this line of thinking. Prove it either way. If the burden of proof is on me, why shouldn't it be on you as well? There is no evidence for or against God that will hold up in a court of law but that is the beauty of the argument, it doesn't have to hold up in a court of law.

    I have also said many many times there are even examples of how every religion on Earth including Atheism could be right all at the same time.
    "I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally" ~ W.C. Fields

    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,480
    vCash:
    9229
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    I've always have a simple retort to this line of thinking. Prove it either way. If the burden of proof is on me, why shouldn't it be on you as well? There is no evidence for or against God that will hold up in a court of law but that is the beauty of the argument, it doesn't have to hold up in a court of law.

    I have also said many many times there are even examples of how every religion on Earth including Atheism could be right all at the same time.
    1) God is necessary for knowledge to exist, despite there not being a single shred of evidence to back such a claim
    2) Now that I've established this claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up;
    3) God exists

    Don't you get it NY???
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    1) God is necessary for knowledge to exist, despite there not being a single shred of evidence to back such a claim
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    2) Now that I've established this claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up;
    3) God exists

    Don't you get it NY???


    The only problem is that I actually can back that claim up (and have on several occasions), it’s demonstrated by the fact that you cannot provide a means to explain how knowledge can be possible in a purely natural world and I can provide a means by how it can be possible in a world created by the God of scripture. So it’s actually the naturalist who is claiming knowledge is possible without God but then failing to demonstrate how it could be possible without God.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,480
    vCash:
    9229
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    The only problem is that I actually can back that claim up (and have on several occasions), it’s demonstrated by the fact that you cannot provide a means to explain how knowledge can be possible in a purely natural world and I can provide a means by how it can be possible in a world created by the God of scripture. So it’s actually the naturalist who is claiming knowledge is possible without God but then failing to demonstrate how it could be possible without God.
    "You don't know how the universe was created, so this POSSIBILITY that I choose to believe MUST be the correct answer".

    Not how proof works, sorry dude.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    12,183
    vCash:
    9423
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    1) God is necessary for knowledge to exist, despite there not being a single shred of evidence to back such a claim
    2) Now that I've established this claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up;
    3) God exists

    Don't you get it NY???
    The next statement is false. The previous statement is true.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    "You don't know how the universe was created, so this POSSIBILITY that I choose to believe MUST be the correct answer".
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post

    Not how proof works, sorry dude.


    You’re totally misrepresenting my position “dude” and I hope it’s not intentional... Where did I say anything about the creation of the universe, the problems for the naturalist are far deeper than that. How can you have immaterial and yet universal laws that discern truth in a purely natural and material universe? How can you have any confidence that future trials will yield the same results under identical conditions? How can you have any confidence your senses accurately depict reality? That your memory is reliable? How can you have any confidence in your ability to reason? You can’t make sense of any of these things in a purely natural universe and yet these questions are totally simple for a Christian to makes sense of. All of these things must be true in order for you to argue against the existence of God and yet if God didn’t exist you couldn’t make sense of any of these things, that’s the point- your argument presupposes God.

    Quote Originally Posted by DisturbedShifty View Post
    I think so, yes. Religions as as a whole started by word of mouth. So all you have to do is stop and back track where it all came from and you have a better idea of what is "truth" and what was added on.


    Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all believe that a donkey talked to a man, a fish swallowed a man for three days, and that the Earth was covered by a global flood, given your above statement these things must have actually happened because these three religions share those beliefs right?

    Quote Originally Posted by spydertl79 View Post
    Sounds great, looking forward to this. Again, last week was my one week/ year when I'm not living at work but Ill be doing my best to respond in a reasonable timeframe. I'm also typing on an iPad so there will be errors.


    Yes, I am excited as well, I like your style; although I do not envy you having to type all of this on an iPad, that’s for sure : -)

    Topic 1, Evidence: Instead of trying to define evidence, which would just lead us away from my point, I will rephrase. how can a rational person who hasn't been indoctrinated believe in a god or, more specifically, a Christian god? If so, wouldn't this person also be inclined to believe in Krishna, Allah, and Santa? The level of evidence (defined as broadly as you see fit) is the same... No reliable eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence of their existence. I argue that only people who are indoctrinated would be able to believe in this. If you do a strict comparison between your god and another god, an unbiased observer with no knowledge of either would not be able to decide which is real and would probably arrive at the correct conclusion that neither of them are. You say that you believe it is possible for a rational person to make this distinction... How? I don't think it's possible to address my question of evidence without drawing a comparison with something that you choose to not believe in despite a similar amount of evidence. My standard of belief is rational because its the same across the board... I hold your god to the same standard as Allah. Believers hold their god to a different standard of proof. This is why a belief in a specific god is illogical. That was the basis of my question. Even if you believe the existence of Yahweh is likely, you certainly can't offer any proof or evidence to sway a non-believer. Your belief is based off of faith alone and your faith is derived from indoctrination.


    Ok, we can start here. Are you claiming that every Christian in the world only believes because they were indoctrinated? So no atheist has ever converted to Christianity later in their life? I can think of quite a few off of the top of my head that indeed have, of course as a Christian I believe this is because of supernatural reasons and not simply because they found the evidence more compelling one way or the other. I believe your position has two more errors. First of all, I believe it falsely assumes that a person can “stand on” neutral ground and fairly weigh the evidence for each god and decide for themselves whether those gods exist or not. I think what you will find is that it is logically impossible to have neutral ground to stand on, a person either starts at the position that there is no god and reasons from there or starts with the position that there is a god and reasons from there. My argument is that starting at the Christian God and reasoning from there yields a consistent view of reality whereas no other starting point does. I think your last mistake is that you ascribe an attribute to evidence it doesn’t possess, you act as if it in itself supports one position or the other. Evidence requires interpretation, this is why you could use one piece of evidence to support your position (the Grand Canyon for instance) and I could use the very same piece of evidence to support my position. That is why I feel the question is much deeper than that, we have to figure out whose position can explain the very concept of proof and evidence to begin with.

    Human brain: If you're familiar with evolution, which I assume that you are, then you know that the general idea is that life started with a single cell organism which eventually became a multi cell organism and so on and so forth all the way up to the diverse flora and fauna that inhabit the earth today. There is overwhelming evidence to support this such as the fact that all living creatures share 23 universal proteins and that the fossil record shows this timeline to be true. The first nervous systems were found in jelly fish and if you look at the structure of each creature that followed them in the evolutionary tree, you will see that the nervous systems gradually get more complex, culminating with the evolution of the cerebral cortex in primates. The four step process put in general terms was: centralization, encephalization, addition, and plasticity. The final step is what makes the brain able to conceptualize and think for itself. Only highly evolved mammals have achieved step 4. Lower mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have all gone through addition of new components, some more than others. Encephalization (concentration of nervous system components to one end of the body) can be seen in any creature with a head... Eyes ears and nose are all close to each other, leading to a more efficient system. The first step, centralization can be seen in the evolution from sea sponges and jellyfish (no brain, just nerves) to fish and then beyond that. What's so beautiful about this phenomena is that if you look at the way that the components of the brain are structured, the most primitive components that we share with lower species can be observed in the brain stem and the most advanced components are found in the front. This structure is common throughout nature. You can see how the brain has evolved and built on itself through hundreds of millions of years of natural selection.


    Yes, I have been instructed on the theory on numerous occasions, but I would like to ask you a few questions about what you wrote above.

    1. How do you know that all living creatures sharing 23 universal proteins is evidence for a single common ancestor and not evidence for a single common creator? After all Volkswagens and Porsches have similar components but that is not because they share a common ancestor but rather because the same man designed the two, couldn’t it be the same with life on Earth?
    2. How complete is the “evolutionary tree”? How many intermediate forms would have been necessary for the evolution of the nervous system from simple to complex? How many examples do we have today?
    3. Would the amount of genetic information have to increase or decrease in order for the nervous system to develop into its more complex forms?

    My brain: I know that my senses are accurate, if that's what you're asking. My sense of sight can be explained by middle school science... Whichever colors in the spectrum are reflected, the human eye's rods and cones can see and whichever are absorbed we can not. Sounds can be explained by frequency, wavelength, amplitude, etc. The physiology of the ear is also pretty simple, relative to the brain. If you're talking about additional dimensions or something of the like then there are theories in quantam science that address this possibility. My brain reflects reality because it has evolved in a manner to maximize the survival of our species. While there are mutations within each species that alter our perception, these traits are naturally selected out of the genetic pool because a creature that possesses a brain that does not accurately perceive threats is more likely to die while one that does is more likely to live and reproduce, passing along the DNA that forms an accurate brain.


    1. Did you have to use your senses in order to learn about how your senses work in Middle School? So you are actually appealing to your senses in order to justify the reliability of your senses? That seems to be a bit circular.
    2. If you were the creation of a rational God who wanted you to learn about Him and His creation I could see you having reason to trust your senses, but in a purely natural universe where all that exists is matter in motion I do not see any justification for a person to trust their senses. Natural selection doesn’t “select” for reliability or accuracy, it merely selects for survival advantage and I can think of quite a few ways that having unreliable senses could still provide a survival advantage, so I do not believe that evolution alone is enough to justify us believing our senses are reliable.

    If science is wrong and our bodies/ brains did not evolve, but were created by god, then wouldn't one expect a better design? I would have designed a symmetrical heart and a much more efficiently routed laryngeal nerve. Evolution embraces these flaws in our bodies and can even identify the chain of evolutionary events that caused them. It's impossible to justify this if you believe in an infallible, omnipotent creator.

    I see you have read Dawkins’ “Greatest Show on Earth”, I believe he tries to make this same point in that book. Well Christianity does hold to a fall which rendered all of creation to be corrupted which can explain certain imperfections we find. That being said, I do not believe the circuitous route taken by the laryngeal nerve is necessarily a bad design at all, we now know that the nerve helps to supply parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus. The pathway taken by the nerve is also a result of the movement of the cardiac system during our embryonic development. Like the appendix, the more we learn about it the more we learn that it is not a vestigial ruminant at all but does serve a very good purpose in our bodies.

    Good discussion and I am looking forward to your response!
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    DisturbedShifty's Avatar
    Wort-wort-wort!!!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,133
    vCash:
    4500
    Loc:
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Xbox LogoHalo LegendaryGalactic Empire medalPlaystation LogoNintendo Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all believe that a donkey talked to a man, a fish swallowed a man for three days, and that the Earth was covered by a global flood, given your above statement these things must have actually happened because these three religions share those beliefs right?
    I never said it wouldn't be exaggerated. That is what happens when you pass stories on by word of mouth. But then again aren't you kinda proving Syder's point about proof? All those things were to have happen because there is a God right? But in your question it sure sounds like you are question whether or not those things happened.

    Like I said, all the Religions have a piece of the puzzle. It just takes calm minds and a LOT of patience to figure out what is accurate and what isn't. And in my opinion science will be the key to finding this higher power.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    spydertl79's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    8,807
    vCash:
    1297
    Loc:
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    You’re totally misrepresenting my position “dude” and I hope it’s not intentional... Where did I say anything about the creation of the universe, the problems for the naturalist are far deeper than that. How can you have immaterial and yet universal laws that discern truth in a purely natural and material universe? How can you have any confidence that future trials will yield the same results under identical conditions? How can you have any confidence your senses accurately depict reality? That your memory is reliable? How can you have any confidence in your ability to reason? You can’t make sense of any of these things in a purely natural universe and yet these questions are totally simple for a Christian to makes sense of. All of these things must be true in order for you to argue against the existence of God and yet if God didn’t exist you couldn’t make sense of any of these things, that’s the point- your argument presupposes God.



    Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all believe that a donkey talked to a man, a fish swallowed a man for three days, and that the Earth was covered by a global flood, given your above statement these things must have actually happened because these three religions share those beliefs right?



    Yes, I am excited as well, I like your style; although I do not envy you having to type all of this on an iPad, that’s for sure : -)



    Ok, we can start here. Are you claiming that every Christian in the world only believes because they were indoctrinated? So no atheist has ever converted to Christianity later in their life? I can think of quite a few off of the top of my head that indeed have, of course as a Christian I believe this is because of supernatural reasons and not simply because they found the evidence more compelling one way or the other. I believe your position has two more errors. First of all, I believe it falsely assumes that a person can “stand on” neutral ground and fairly weigh the evidence for each god and decide for themselves whether those gods exist or not. I think what you will find is that it is logically impossible to have neutral ground to stand on, a person either starts at the position that there is no god and reasons from there or starts with the position that there is a god and reasons from there. My argument is that starting at the Christian God and reasoning from there yields a consistent view of reality whereas no other starting point does. I think your last mistake is that you ascribe an attribute to evidence it doesn’t possess, you act as if it in itself supports one position or the other. Evidence requires interpretation, this is why you could use one piece of evidence to support your position (the Grand Canyon for instance) and I could use the very same piece of evidence to support my position. That is why I feel the question is much deeper than that, we have to figure out whose position can explain the very concept of proof and evidence to begin with.



    Yes, I have been instructed on the theory on numerous occasions, but I would like to ask you a few questions about what you wrote above.

    1. How do you know that all living creatures sharing 23 universal proteins is evidence for a single common ancestor and not evidence for a single common creator? After all Volkswagens and Porsches have similar components but that is not because they share a common ancestor but rather because the same man designed the two, couldn’t it be the same with life on Earth?
    2. How complete is the “evolutionary tree”? How many intermediate forms would have been necessary for the evolution of the nervous system from simple to complex? How many examples do we have today?
    3. Would the amount of genetic information have to increase or decrease in order for the nervous system to develop into its more complex forms?

    1. Did you have to use your senses in order to learn about how your senses work in Middle School? So you are actually appealing to your senses in order to justify the reliability of your senses? That seems to be a bit circular.
    2. If you were the creation of a rational God who wanted you to learn about Him and His creation I could see you having reason to trust your senses, but in a purely natural universe where all that exists is matter in motion I do not see any justification for a person to trust their senses. Natural selection doesn’t “select” for reliability or accuracy, it merely selects for survival advantage and I can think of quite a few ways that having unreliable senses could still provide a survival advantage, so I do not believe that evolution alone is enough to justify us believing our senses are reliable.


    I see you have read Dawkins’ “Greatest Show on Earth”, I believe he tries to make this same point in that book. Well Christianity does hold to a fall which rendered all of creation to be corrupted which can explain certain imperfections we find. That being said, I do not believe the circuitous route taken by the laryngeal nerve is necessarily a bad design at all, we now know that the nerve helps to supply parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus. The pathway taken by the nerve is also a result of the movement of the cardiac system during our embryonic development. Like the appendix, the more we learn about it the more we learn that it is not a vestigial ruminant at all but does serve a very good purpose in our bodies.

    Good discussion and I am looking forward to your response!
    Well, I believe that society can be a source of indoctrination even if one's parental guardians are non believers. It's certainly the convenient thing to believe in American society and many others. I have lied before about my views because I knew that someone would find my beliefs offensive. Aside from that, I think we can agree that a vast and overwhelming majority of Christians are lifelong believers from our own observations. Those few outliers don't damage my original assertion and I feel that theres a good chance these people never truly denied the existence of God anyway.


    You can "start" at a belief in god if you wish, but that is not a logical viewpoint, and here's why. Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack of believing. I do not believe in your god for the same reason that I don't believe in unicorns- I have absolutely zero reason to believe it.


    Example: What if I were to say that I believe that life was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster 10000 years ago. I just know this is true in my heart of hearts. Surely using my personal, illogical viewpoint as the starting point for a discussion on the creation of life would be ridiculous, right? The only difference between this belief and your own is that more people have been indoctrinated with your belief system than with my hypothetical one. For any reasoned discussion, one must start at nothing and build their views based off of scientific evidence. To do otherwise is ridiculous.

    Despite what you may think, many people are able to stand on neutral ground and weigh the evidence... Those people are atheists or agnostics.

    To keep this relatively on track, I will say that these three paragraphs answer most of your questions. I'll try to address your specific questions regarding biology that I don't feel that this statement covers.

    The body itself has hundreds of bad designs, the heart and laryngeal nerve are simply the two most famous examples. Wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, poor sinus drainage, etc. I'll give you that the human body is amazing, because it is, but Im glad you admitted that it is not perfect. Could you further explain the verse about the fall please? I believe this leaves you with two possibilities: either god is fallible or god intentionally inflicts these terrible diseases and genetic mutations on our species.

    To tie this into the "matrix" argument, I also believe that our senses evolved via natural selection to be very good, but again far from perfect. We can not see the entire color spectrum or hear many sound frequencies, but neither of these would serve a survival advantage that I can think of and so this is explainable by natural selection. This also ties into my statement of only believing in things that have no reason to believe in. Unless there is a reason to believe that what you say is true about us lacking the ability to process evidence of gods existence (at least that's what I thought you meant) then I won't believe in it. I know that quantam physics explores the possibility of additional dimensions but there is still no reason to believe in magic just for the sake of believing in magic.

    I don't believe there is an answer to your question of whether more or less genetic data would be required for the brain to evolve. Each case is different... You have to keep in mind that different mutations would be happening simultaneously, including deletion of unnecessary genetic data (i.e. flagella in the jellyfish->fish example).

    Lastly, please don't make the old intermediate forms argument against evolution. It's simply untrue as many intermediate forms have been found and we continue to find more and more.
    "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
    Henry Wheeler Shaw
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    DisturbedShifty's Avatar
    Wort-wort-wort!!!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,133
    vCash:
    4500
    Loc:
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Xbox LogoHalo LegendaryGalactic Empire medalPlaystation LogoNintendo Logo

    Re: A civil conversation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    [SIZE=5][FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#000000]A. Addressing your points about the Human brain; how do you know the human brain functions in a manner that accurately reflects reality? More precisely, how do you know that what you sense to be real is indeed real and your ability to reason accurately discerns what is true? In a Universe that is purely natural and material I do not understand how you can have any confidence that your brain has evolved in a manner that accurately depicts reality. As a Christian I can have confidence that my brain depicts reality because I am the creation of a rational God who desires for me to learn about Him and His creation.
    I think someone has watched the Matrix one too many times.

    And the part about a rational God. Pffft. What God would let his creations suffer so much?

    That being said, I believe there is a higher power of some sort. And each of the major religions have a piece of the puzzle, but are all to damned stubborn to put aside their differences to figure it out. And I am including science in that group as well. This may be taken as a ignorant point of view. But that is your opinion.

    Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. BS conversation starters
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 02:15 PM
  2. A Conversation with Sam Madison
    By ryyyan24 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2004, 10:22 AM
  3. A conversation with Sam Madison
    By ryyyan24 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-16-2004, 05:58 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-01-2004, 01:53 AM
  5. Dan's conversation with Jay
    By dolfan87 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-14-2004, 06:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •