Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 822 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
... alien seeding theories ... solves nothing in the end and provides absolutely no alternative to evolution.
hmmm. I agree there is no direct evidence for alien intelligence. What I don't comprehend though, in terms of evolution, is how the Egyptians built the pyramids. The intelligence in the design and construction of the pyramids seems so far in advance of any human knowledge, incorporating mathematical ratios for the whole earth and unbelievable precision in placement of immense stones. The decline in ability to make pyramids indicates a loss of this high ancient knowledge. Evolution proceeds by small steps, not by vast jumps. Ability to make pyramids seems unprecedented in terms of prior human evolution. Maybe it is just a myth, but I'm not sure you can dismiss the idea that the pyramids, especially when they were covered by shining white limestone until the Muslim conquest, are signs of external contact with the earth. Graham Hancock's material on how the tubes from the pyramid chambers point to stars is compatible with such a claim. But it would be nice to think humans were smart enough to make the pyramids without help.
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 2399 Images: 7 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 803 Thanked: 608 times in 439 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
I have noticed that, usually, when you ask a person why some task is impossible, they will usually give you a fairly good plan on exactly how to tackle it in a feasible way.
Ancient humans could not have possibly created the pyramids because they would have had to quarry stone from miles away, painstakingly roll them to the site on a series of log pulls, have hundreds or thousands of workers on hand to muscle them into place, build sand traps to erect the heavy blocks, and then polish them until they shine.
Clearly, this kind of thing is possible. Especially when you have your own nation to force into hard labor.
As for the mathematics? Is it so hard to believe that history is not just a series of achievements? Look at the middle east. Once a beacon of science, intellectualism, and the pursuit of knowledge, now a fractured, tribal blood-feud. (brought on by a resurgence of fundamentalist religion. Go figure.)
Dark ages Europe was no picnic after the comparative grand works of Greece and Rome. All cases of people losing knowledge and having to re-discover it. Why could this not be true of the Egyptians?
_________________ Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. -James Williamson MD
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -Derek Bok
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry... Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. -The Credible Hulk
Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 1258
Thanks: 508 Thanked: 474 times in 362 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Hey Robert, I'm not saying that aliens definitely don't exist or that they couldn't have visited the earth in the past. It isn't proven but It's possible. It also doesn't negate evolutionary processes existing in the universe either. Some people would say we didn't evolve, evolution is wrong, rather we were genetically engineered by alien life. The point is where did that potential alien life that came and engineered us originate from? It just pushes the question of origins back. They would have been genetically engineered as well. But at some point somewhere down the line life would have had to evolved into existence. To step from the BB to the first class of alien life to the aliens that seeded the earth evolution has to fit in somewhere, or we're back to a supernatural God (with no beginning or end and uncreated) deciding to create aliens that decided to create more aliens that at some point came to the earth and engineered humanity. It's a mess. The point is that evolution would have to remain as a process in the universe and the alien seeding ideas don't eliminate it.
John Anthony West thinks that humanity evolved to high knowledge during the last several Great Year's and then went through lows during the bottom of the Yuga cycles. It's atlantian type ideas for the knowledge of Egypt, not alien seeding. And this doesn't provide an alternative to evolution either. So YEC, OEC, AS, and Atlantian ideas fail to provide an alternative to the evolutionary process as I understand. So all of this butting heads with science about discovery of evolution is unwarrented at best.
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 822 Thanked: 817 times in 614 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
I'm not suggesting anything contrary to evolution, just pointing out that the unique nature of the Egyptian pyramids may be hard to explain through the incremental logic of evolution. Anyway, it is a fun topic to invent myths for.
Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Horus and Thoth, maybe three or four others to make up the eight (ogdoad) or the nine (ennead), land in the ocean in a space pod from a distant star. They move to Egypt because it is fertile, isolated, climatically stable and at the geographic meeting point of the main land masses of the planet. Over thousands of years they live as semi-secret Gods. The fields of reeds are due west of the Nile mouth in the Bay of Libya, where the alien gods live on floating islands and some humans are allowed. They largely keep their knowledge and existence invisible to humans, but arrange to build the pyramids as a monument to their cosmic origins. Carrying his trusty harmonic djed, Osiris gradually morphs into the green god of life and death and the sun. Meanwhile, he and his team establish Atlantis by building oceanic cities on large fabric bags of floating fresh water. The end of Atlantis comes when much of California falls into the sea with a giant slip of the San Andreas Fault, sending a mile high tsunami several times around the world ocean that obliterates the hidden alien civilization on the high seas, with Aeolia the only remnant.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
The evolution of creationist apologetics.
A) Primitive = YEC: God created the world in six days about six thousand years +/-ago and science is wrong, there's no evolution.
B) Advancing = OEC: God created the world billions of years ago, as science shows, but God created man in his own image and there's still no evolution even though science says there is.
C) Modernizing = ID: God created the world billions of years ago and it has been evolving just as science says, but God has been directing the evolving process which resulted in humanity.
Where can they go from here? At some point it would seem that they'll have to flat out take up the scientific method for what it actually is because they've been coming closer and closer to it, step by step, all along. At some point the two paths seem destined to converge. By then those who remain in the primitive and advancing stages would likely be such a minority that they have no pull any more. The rejection of science will have faded out altogether. This new converging realm is where a Christian like Robert seems to fit in and is currently pioneering and discovering possibilities. It accepts the scientific method and pushes beyond ID fallacies.
You make this sound ike a progession but it is not.
The scientific method has one requirement within it which dooms it to ultimate failure.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Last edited by stahrwe on Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
johnson1010 wrote:
It fails to conform to your favorite fairy tales?
No, repeatability. Do you remember the post I did once before about repeatability?
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 1258
Thanks: 508 Thanked: 474 times in 362 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
YEC has been put to rest. It's like the few Japanese soliders lost on different south pacific Islands that had no idea the war was over, even years after the war had long since ended.
YEC ended the minute the sun was proven the center of the solar system and not something created after the earth orbiting around the earth, as Genesis suggests. That's why people thought the earth was the center of the solar system - Genesis formats it that way when taken "literally". YEC was finished at that point. Everyone promoting YEC thereafter, and I mean everyone, have been like lost soliders thinking the war is still going when it isn't. It ended before Darwinian Evolution ever hit the scene. YEC is over. The scientific method is only getting stronger with time and that's why apologetics have been slowly gravitating towards the scientific method to appear more rational and reasonable. In time, creationism will likely merge completely resulting in accepting science wholly while clinging to the notion that there's a reason for it all. Perhaps, in time, that will be let go as well as apologetics continue to evolve.
The bottom line is that when dealing with the question of absolute ultimates we're dealing with the mystery behind why existence even exists in the first place. There's no fixed answer. It just exists, it just is. Neither can there be any one fixed meaning for that which has always been and will always be which is what mere existence is in the deepest sense. A truly deep spiritual realization involves understanding that much about the mythological God symbolism - that its a metaphor for the mysery of existence underlying everything. So the final struggle to fight for some fixed meaning for evolution that comes out in ID, actually comes to an abrupt end when approaching the question of absolute ultimates. The final point of religious contention is then openly lost just as every other smaller point of contention along the way during this evolving process of apologetics.
That would be coming into the final D phase in the A,B,C evolution of creationist apologetics putting the entire venture (YEC, OEC, and ID) to rest once and for all by completely merging into the scientific method.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bah, I think Stahrwe was scared of looking foolish again. In science, experiments must be repeatable. This does not mean the phenomena that are studied must be repeated or repeatable. Creationists don't put forth the mental effort to realize the distinction, and look stupid for mistaking the two. Here's some information about repeatability and evolution:
"Most creationists now reluctantly concede that so-called microevolution (i.e., evolution below the ill-defined biblical "kinds" level) does occur. There is just too much supportive evidence (drug resistance, pesticide resistance, alternate host development, etc.) for them to deny the reality of microevolution any longer. Since that target is no longer available for them to snipe at, they now focus on so-called macroevolution, i.e., normally understood to mean evolution at or above the species level. (It is difficult to pin down creationists on what they actually mean by macroevolution since their definitions of biblical "kinds" are so vague and are continuously metamorphosing to suit their needs.) However creationists define macroevolution, they are adamant that its occurrence cannot possibly be accounted for by the TOE. Their reasoning, if one can call it that, goes something like this: Since the emergence of all the basic "kinds" occurred so far back in the distant past, when no one was around to actually see it happening, it is impossible to develop a valid scientific explanation for how the process took place. Valid scientific theories must be based on things that can be observed and tested by repeatable experimentation. Since macroevolution to form the different "kinds" could not be directly observed and tested by repeatable experimentation, it is not a valid scientific concept.
What the anti-evolutionists seem to misunderstand (or ignore) is that, in science, a particular phenomenon under investigation does not actually have to be repeated or reproduced from scratch, in toto, in order to arrive at valid scientific explanations pertaining to that phenomenon? For example, geologists do not have to actually reproduce the Ice Age Missoula Flood(s) in order to determine that it occurred, when it occurred, how widespread it was, and to develop meaningful theories about its cause. Examination of the geological evidence left behind by the historical event is all it takes to arrive at verifiable scientific conclusions about its occurrence. Science is only concerned with the evaluation of verifiable evidence (circumstantial, after the fact, or otherwise) that is consistent among observers, regardless who examines it or when it was produced. Repeatability in science refers to the availability of pertinent evidence, not the ability to completely replicate the overarching phenomenon being investigated. There are a number of historical sciences (cosmology, paleontology, geology, archeology, etc.) which employ this method of evidence testing.
To meet the criterion of scientific authenticity, observations must be available to all interested investigators and must be consistent (within the limits of statistical variation) among all investigators. It is the consistency of the observations and their openness to all investigators to which the term "repeatability" in science refers. As stated above, there is no requirement that the entire scope of the phenomenon under study must be duplicated in order to develop valid scientific theories that explain the phenomenon. It is by using this same line of reasoning that juries are able to arrive at meaningful verdicts. As in the case of scientific investigation, the original crime does not have to be recreated in its entirety in the court room. Examination of evidence left at the crime scene and elsewhere is often all that is needed for a conviction. What is required in both a court of law and science is not absolute certainty. Verdicts/scientific theories must only be correct "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for them to be valid and instructive.
Regarding the creationist claim that macroevolution cannot be observed and experimentally repeated, if one defines macroevolution as evolution occurring at the species level, then their claim is clearly false. (See here.) Even if one goes along with one of the creationists' more fuzzy higher-level definitions of "kind, " there is still a plethora of observed, testable and repeatable evidence that supports macroevolution. (See here.) Just because creationists are unaware of (or choose to ignore) this evidence does not mean that it does not exist and that their claims have any merit. To falsely claim, as creationists do, that the TOE is not observable and repeatable in the scientific sense serves only to call attention to their ignorance of the scientific method.
As a corollary to their claim that the TOE is not a scientific theory, the creationists must believe then that, either scientists are too dumb to recognize the purported fatal flaws in the theory, or they must believe that there is some kind of conspiracy going on within the scientific community to suppress the facts. Since most scientists are not noted for being dumb, it is presumably the conspiracy theory to which they give the most weight. In this respect, they have much in common with all the other conspiracy kooks who pollute the Internet with their cockamamie fantasies.
The truth is, any scientist who could disprove any of the major tenets of the TOE would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize, would achieve instant worldwide fame and scientific acclaim, and would be the recipient of more grant money than he/she could spend in a lifetime. Scientists are not just in the business of proving theories, they are in the business of disproving them as well. Nothing would make a scientist happier (and more famous) than shooting down a well-established theory like the TOE. Evolutionary scientists test the TOE every time they do research on the subject. By investigating evidence that verifies the theory, they are also investigating evidence that could potentially disprove it. All it would take would be something like the discovery of a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock or an aquatic mammal with gills, and it would be the end of the TOE as we know it. (Tellingly, no such evidence has ever been discovered.) Taking these facts into consideration, orchestrating a worldwide conspiracy to conceal any serious shortcomings of the TOE would be a virtual impossibility - especially considering that many of these scientists are, themselves, practicing Christians. Only someone unaware how both human nature and science work could peddle such a nonsensical idea."
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
I haven't heard it yet Stahrwe, just for the sake of knowing I'd like to hear what dooms the scientific method to ultimate failure.
Suppose we conducted an experiment to determine if God exists. We structure the experiment so that at a certain time and place if He exists He will be present.
At the appointed time and palce scientists are present from all over the world along with media, religions people, and the curious.
At the appointed hour God appears and stays until everyone present is satisfied that He is God, not just satisfied, but convinced beyond any doubt. God leaves.
Science must continue to deny God because the experiment in not repeatable.
As to Interbane's objection, God isnot a phenomena but in point of fact his objection is bogus anyway unless hec an cite an example of a phenomena which only occurred once. The scientific method is not perfect. It was designed to look at things in a very limited way. A way I add which is not even natural so it should not come as a surprise that science comes to incorrect conclusions before we even get to the economic incentives.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Interbane wrote:
Bah, I think Stahrwe was scared of looking foolish again. In science, experiments must be repeatable. This does not mean the phenomena that are studied must be repeated or repeatable. Creationists don't put forth the mental effort to realize the distinction, and look stupid for mistaking the two. Here's some information about repeatability and evolution:
"Most creationists now reluctantly concede that so-called microevolution (i.e., evolution below the ill-defined biblical "kinds" level) does occur. There is just too much supportive evidence (drug resistance, pesticide resistance, alternate host development, etc.) for them to deny the reality of microevolution any longer. Since that target is no longer available for them to snipe at, they now focus on so-called macroevolution, i.e., normally understood to mean evolution at or above the species level. (It is difficult to pin down creationists on what they actually mean by macroevolution since their definitions of biblical "kinds" are so vague and are continuously metamorphosing to suit their needs.) However creationists define macroevolution, they are adamant that its occurrence cannot possibly be accounted for by the TOE. Their reasoning, if one can call it that, goes something like this: Since the emergence of all the basic "kinds" occurred so far back in the distant past, when no one was around to actually see it happening, it is impossible to develop a valid scientific explanation for how the process took place. Valid scientific theories must be based on things that can be observed and tested by repeatable experimentation. Since macroevolution to form the different "kinds" could not be directly observed and tested by repeatable experimentation, it is not a valid scientific concept.
What the anti-evolutionists seem to misunderstand (or ignore) is that, in science, a particular phenomenon under investigation does not actually have to be repeated or reproduced from scratch, in toto, in order to arrive at valid scientific explanations pertaining to that phenomenon? For example, geologists do not have to actually reproduce the Ice Age Missoula Flood(s) in order to determine that it occurred, when it occurred, how widespread it was, and to develop meaningful theories about its cause. Examination of the geological evidence left behind by the historical event is all it takes to arrive at verifiable scientific conclusions about its occurrence. Science is only concerned with the evaluation of verifiable evidence (circumstantial, after the fact, or otherwise) that is consistent among observers, regardless who examines it or when it was produced. Repeatability in science refers to the availability of pertinent evidence, not the ability to completely replicate the overarching phenomenon being investigated. There are a number of historical sciences (cosmology, paleontology, geology, archeology, etc.) which employ this method of evidence testing.
To meet the criterion of scientific authenticity, observations must be available to all interested investigators and must be consistent (within the limits of statistical variation) among all investigators. It is the consistency of the observations and their openness to all investigators to which the term "repeatability" in science refers. As stated above, there is no requirement that the entire scope of the phenomenon under study must be duplicated in order to develop valid scientific theories that explain the phenomenon. It is by using this same line of reasoning that juries are able to arrive at meaningful verdicts. As in the case of scientific investigation, the original crime does not have to be recreated in its entirety in the court room. Examination of evidence left at the crime scene and elsewhere is often all that is needed for a conviction. What is required in both a court of law and science is not absolute certainty. Verdicts/scientific theories must only be correct "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for them to be valid and instructive.
Regarding the creationist claim that macroevolution cannot be observed and experimentally repeated, if one defines macroevolution as evolution occurring at the species level, then their claim is clearly false. (See here.) Even if one goes along with one of the creationists' more fuzzy higher-level definitions of "kind, " there is still a plethora of observed, testable and repeatable evidence that supports macroevolution. (See here.) Just because creationists are unaware of (or choose to ignore) this evidence does not mean that it does not exist and that their claims have any merit. To falsely claim, as creationists do, that the TOE is not observable and repeatable in the scientific sense serves only to call attention to their ignorance of the scientific method.
As a corollary to their claim that the TOE is not a scientific theory, the creationists must believe then that, either scientists are too dumb to recognize the purported fatal flaws in the theory, or they must believe that there is some kind of conspiracy going on within the scientific community to suppress the facts. Since most scientists are not noted for being dumb, it is presumably the conspiracy theory to which they give the most weight. In this respect, they have much in common with all the other conspiracy kooks who pollute the Internet with their cockamamie fantasies.
The truth is, any scientist who could disprove any of the major tenets of the TOE would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize, would achieve instant worldwide fame and scientific acclaim, and would be the recipient of more grant money than he/she could spend in a lifetime. Scientists are not just in the business of proving theories, they are in the business of disproving them as well. Nothing would make a scientist happier (and more famous) than shooting down a well-established theory like the TOE. Evolutionary scientists test the TOE every time they do research on the subject. By investigating evidence that verifies the theory, they are also investigating evidence that could potentially disprove it. All it would take would be something like the discovery of a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock or an aquatic mammal with gills, and it would be the end of the TOE as we know it. (Tellingly, no such evidence has ever been discovered.) Taking these facts into consideration, orchestrating a worldwide conspiracy to conceal any serious shortcomings of the TOE would be a virtual impossibility - especially considering that many of these scientists are, themselves, practicing Christians. Only someone unaware how both human nature and science work could peddle such a nonsensical idea."
I'm afraid you are confused again. Of couse you don't have to reproduce something for which there is historic evidence. But suppose you had a theory that there had been some kind of flood. You set out looking for evidence, find it and report it along with the statement, "No one else need go and see for themselves." That will not work. Others will need to verify, etc. in order to be accepted, and so, we do in fact have the requriement for repeatability, in this case of observing the evidence. You state I am wrong and then proceed to explain how I am correct.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
The following user would like to thank stahrwe for this post: Interbane
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
