Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:35 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution 
Author Message
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
We have 7-14 megabytes of unique data in our DNA that sets us apart from apes. Now if you say that there was no complexity involved in producing this 7-14 megabytes, then it's not suspposed to be a problem for scientists to show how those 14 megabytes could write themselves by random mutations... 7-14 megabytes is not a lot of data, it's like 2-3 songs.
This is a very simple and specific question, that is needed to be answered in order for evolution to be taken seriously. But if scientists can't explain the origin of 7-14 megabytes, what can they explain?
And this is why I say that evolution is a religion. Because you people who are the followers of this religion, your first question had to be "ok what are those 7-14 megabytes and how they came to be?". But no, since evolution is not science but a religion, therefore its followers don't think rationally, instead they look for anything that could reinforce their faith.
That's why you would avoide talking about those 7-14 megabytes, and instead talk about anything else. Why there are 98-99% of identical DNA? Why the fossil record shows that species are related? Why cavefish lost its sight? And then you use all this and misinterpert it in order to reinforce your faith.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:25 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16193
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3496
Thanked: 1327 times in 1046 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Name 3 books you have read about evolutionary theory.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4400
Location: NC
Thanks: 1867
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
We have 7-14 megabytes of unique data in our DNA that sets us apart from apes. Now if you say that there was no complexity involved in producing this 7-14 megabytes, then it's not suspposed to be a problem for scientists to show how those 14 megabytes could write themselves by random mutations... 7-14 megabytes is not a lot of data, it's like 2-3 songs.
This is a very simple and specific question . . .


You could easily ask why is fox DNA different from rabbit DNA. The answer would be the same, since DNA is the unique genetic code of each living organism. You might also wonder, as I do, how an onion has more than 12 times more DNA than a human. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... an-you-do/

I'm not sure why this specific question is so crucial for you when you have already dismissed other forms of evidence for evolution that are far easier to understand. DNA is a rather complex subject, and to understand the answer to your question, I would assume one would need to have a pretty good grasp of genetics. You seem to be looking for simple answers to complex questions. And when confronted by complexity, you simply dismiss it.

I'm curious though: where you got the information that we have 7-14 megabytes of unique data that sets us apart from apes? I've never seen DNA information expressed in megabytes.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:43 pm
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
You have to distinguish between different types of evidence and its significance. Not every evidence is alike.

"You could easily ask why is fox DNA different from rabbit DNA. The answer would be the same, since DNA is the unique genetic code of each living organism. You might also wonder, as I do, how an onion has more than 12 times more DNA than a human."

Yes each species have a unique DNA, we have to prove that it could be produced by random mutations.
The fact that onion has 12 more DNA doesn't have to mean a thing. Probably a random mutation made the onion to replicate its DNA multiple times, but it doesn't mean that it is unique DNA.
It's like you have a book with 500 pages and a book with 100 pages. Now during printing a mistake occured, and they printed the 100 pages book 9 times more than needed. Now your 100 pages book looks like 1000 pages book, but it contains only 100 pages of information. So even though the 1000 pages book has twice pages, the 500 pages book contains 5 times more data.
SO the fact that onion has 12 times more DNA than us, doesn't mean it has 12 times more information than us.

"I'm not sure why this specific question is so crucial for you when you have already dismissed other forms of evidence for evolution that are far easier to understand."

What evidence? That all organisms are related and that fish can lose sight? I already explained that it may have an alternative explanation. In order for evolution to be possible, you have to show that random mutations can creat new unique information.
Now you claim that one needs a good grasp of genetics in order to understand how random mutations can produce new complexity... so why haven't we heard about it? That small incomprehensible research from that website is all that scientific community came up with? So why isn't that research famous?
I mean when they discovered that amino acids in the test tube in the 50's they made big noise about it, that it supposedly showed how cells could emerge by natural processes... so why haven't we hear about a research that would support the notion of new information being created by random mutation?
Why it is only on some small website that nobody knows about?
Where are all the books and videos titled "how random mutations produce new DNA information"??? Where all of it? In some secret vault in the white house?

"I'm curious though: where you got the information that we have 7-14 megabytes of unique data that sets us apart from apes? I've never seen DNA information expressed in megabytes."

Simple calculation, just google it. They say human DNA is roughly 700 megabytes. SO 1-2% equal to 7-14 megabytes.
But there are different estimates, some say our DNA is less than 700 mb, some say it's more.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:58 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
BTW i compared previously 7-14 megabytes to 2-3 songs. What I should have compared it to is text.
So 7-14 megabytes can be 3000-6000 pages of text. Now that's a lot of text.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:02 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Hoarder

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2104
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 81
Thanked: 787 times in 609 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there". This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.

This is a very strange response for several reasons.
  1. That web site, The National Center for Biotechnical Information, is primarily a repository for scientific studies. It is a collection of studies, not a textbook or "bible." You don't seem to understand what the web site intends or provides.
  2. You claim no one understands anything on that web site. That is not true. Most scientific studies require advanced degrees to write and comprehend. That is partly because the standards for precision and accuracy are so high in these fields. Biological scientists do understand these studies, so you are wrong on this count.
  3. Other scientists will review and critique or accept these studies. So you are wrong that using that site is a trick.
  4. You mention proof several times. You don't seem to understand the scientific process. A study is not intended as proof of the subject. It provides evidence to be evaluated by scientific peers. The study I linked may have flaws or it may be providing significant new information, time will tell.
  5. You stated several times that no studies have been done to address your concerns about the 1 - 2% DNA variance. I presented one and although you immediately rejected it as incomprehensible, it proves your assertion is wrong. I'm sure there are many other studies that address your statements.
  6. No, I do not understand the entirety of the study, but I apprehend the gist of it and see the deep experience of those who conducted it. I expect it provides interesting information for other experts in the field to evaluate, we shall see. You do not need to understand all of the study to realize it disproves your assertion about a lack of such studies. I also do not need to understand the mathematics of nuclear fusion to know the sun generates that type of energy as stated by generations of physicists.
  7. It is important for you to reject conflicting information as quickly as possible and you appear to be good at that. You have a very strong confirmation bias, where one sees only information that confirms your assumptions while literally being blind to anything that conflicts with your beliefs. You make incorrect claims about a lack of scientific data because you don't seek it out and dismiss it as soon as you trip across it. You admit to not being interested in reading books on the subject even if they include information directly addressing your confusion. It makes me a little sad to consider you will probably spend the rest of your life railing about the 1 - 2% DNA, ignoring all explanatory or conflicting information, learning nothing, complaining about not understanding advanced information, and remaining over-confident in your knowledge.



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
DWill, geo
Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:00 pm
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Scientists may claim whatever they want, it's a fact that nobody here on this forum can read that research and understand how it explains the creation of new information by natural proccesses... I'm not talking about trivial information like losing eyes or getting blue eyes and blond hair, but complex information that worth at least 7-14 megabytes.
Also the problem is not only that 1-2% of DNA. The problem is that evolutionists don't really know how any of our internal organs evolved. For example how a 2 chamber heart became a 3 chamber heart. How we got lungs from gills. How bacteria evolved a flagellum. You will find research papers about all of these issues, including on that specific website. But none of that research will be able to explain coherently how all the above mentioned structures had evolved.
All those research does is to find one animal with 2 chambers heart, and another animal with 3 chambers heart, and then assume that it somehow evolved... so it's like I take a car with 1 cylinder engine and a car with 2 cylinder engine, and simply assume that it is a darwinian evolution... which of course is not true, because we had to use intelligence in order to create that.
If I want to know how the engine is built, i will find great 3d graphic simulation videos that will explain every little detail... but if i want to know how heart, or lungs or any organ evolved, all I will find is some drawings and hand made sketches and many trivial data. The author simply wants me to imagine that it had evolved, without being able to explain how.



Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:46 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4400
Location: NC
Thanks: 1867
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
LanDroid wrote:
person123 wrote:
I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there". This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.

This is a very strange response for several reasons.
  1. That web site, The National Center for Biotechnical Information, is primarily a repository for scientific studies. It is a collection of studies, not a textbook or "bible." You don't seem to understand what the web site intends or provides.
  2. You claim no one understands anything on that web site. That is not true. Most scientific studies require advanced degrees to write and comprehend. That is partly because the standards for precision and accuracy are so high in these fields. Biological scientists do understand these studies, so you are wrong on this count.
  3. Other scientists will review and critique or accept these studies. So you are wrong that using that site is a trick.
  4. You mention proof several times. You don't seem to understand the scientific process. A study is not intended as proof of the subject. It provides evidence to be evaluated by scientific peers. The study I linked may have flaws or it may be providing significant new information, time will tell.
  5. You stated several times that no studies have been done to address your concerns about the 1 - 2% DNA variance. I presented one and although you immediately rejected it as incomprehensible, it proves your assertion is wrong. I'm sure there are many other studies that address your statements.
  6. No, I do not understand the entirety of the study, but I apprehend the gist of it and see the deep experience of those who conducted it. I expect it provides interesting information for other experts in the field to evaluate, we shall see. You do not need to understand all of the study to realize it disproves your assertion about a lack of such studies. I also do not need to understand the mathematics of nuclear fusion to know the sun generates that type of energy as stated by generations of physicists.
  7. It is important for you to reject conflicting information as quickly as possible and you appear to be good at that. You have a very strong confirmation bias, where one sees only information that confirms your assumptions while literally being blind to anything that conflicts with your beliefs. You make incorrect claims about a lack of scientific data because you don't seek it out and dismiss it as soon as you trip across it. You admit to not being interested in reading books on the subject even if they include information directly addressing your confusion. It makes me a little sad to consider you will probably spend the rest of your life railing about the 1 - 2% DNA, ignoring all explanatory or conflicting information, learning nothing, complaining about not understanding advanced information, and remaining over-confident in your knowledge.

:goodpost:

I know we should let this thread die, but I wanted to make sure LanDroid's great post was not overlooked.

At some point I wanted to comment on the role of deductive reasoning in science, but I think the moment has passed. Fortunately, on another thread from long ago, Dexter quoted this from Stephen Jay Gould, which I think is perfectly apt here.

Quote:
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.


why-do-so-many-have-trouble-believing-in-evolution-t18103-60.html?hilit=deductive


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:07 am
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Ah??
1. That website doesn't provide an explanation for anything. No one here can read that website and understand how anything could have evolved.
2. There are many scientific creationist websites that do same thing but the opposite, they analyze data and conduct research only to conclude that evolution is not possible and that organisms are products of creation. I can do the same as you, post links here for creationist scientific websites that claim to refute evolution.
Michael Behe is a scientist, Stephen Meyer is a scientist, David Berlinski is a scientist, James Tour is a scientist, the Discovery institute is a scientific organization.
I could have quote them and provide links to their research and use it as a "proof". But unlike you, I chose not to do it, because it's called "argument from authority". This is what you do, you use materials that nobody understands and hide behind it.
3. You tend to clinge to words. This is semantics. No need to explain to me that there is no such thing as "proof" or whatever... when I say "prove" you know what I mean by that, to provide enough evidence in order to consider a certain claim to be probable enough in order to be taken seriously.
So no need to lecture me that there is no such thing as "proof" or "fact" or whatever. Don't hide behind words games. Don't play with words.



Last edited by person123 on Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:48 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
I mean you don't even know what evolution is... you think that fish losing its eyes or onion having more DNA than humans is evidence for evolution? I mean comon...



Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:49 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4400
Location: NC
Thanks: 1867
Thanked: 1938 times in 1451 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
I mean you don't even know what evolution is... you think that fish losing its eyes or onion having more DNA than humans is evidence for evolution? I mean comon...

I'm curious, how old are you?

If you read LanDroid's link about common misconceptions, you would know that evolution isn't always progressive. Natural selection favors improved abilities to survive and reproduce. Since vision is a costly adaptation and unnecessary for survival in a dark environment, the Mexican tetra, in finding a new ecological niche (in caves), gradually lost its vision and, thus, had more resources available to other adaptations that enabled it to survive. As I previously mentioned, there's a cost-benefit analysis at work with evolutionary processes.

By the way, here's an article from National Geographic, titled: "How This Cave-Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... evolution/

and from the Royal Society Journal: "Towards an integrated approach to understand Mexican cavefish evolution"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2018.0101

and from the Company of Biologists web site: "Sensory evolution in blind cavefish is driven by early embryonic events during gastrulation and neurulation"

https://dev.biologists.org/content/143/23/4521


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill
Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:30 pm
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
geo wrote:
person123 wrote:
I mean you don't even know what evolution is... you think that fish losing its eyes or onion having more DNA than humans is evidence for evolution? I mean comon...

I'm curious, how old are you?

If you read LanDroid's link about common misconceptions, you would know that evolution isn't always progressive. Natural selection favors improved abilities to survive and reproduce. Vision is a costly adaptation and unnecessary for survival in a dark environment. So the ancestor of the Mexican cavefish in finding a new ecological niche (in caves) gradually lost its vision and, thus, had more resources available to other adaptations that enabled it to survive. As I previously mentioned, there's a cost-benefit analysis at work with evolutionary processes.

By the way, here's an article from National Geographic, titled: "How This Cave-Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... evolution/

and from the Royal Society Journal: "Towards an integrated approach to understand Mexican cavefish evolution"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2018.0101

and from the Company of Biologists web site: "Sensory evolution in blind cavefish is driven by early embryonic events during gastrulation and neurulation"

https://dev.biologists.org/content/143/23/4521


If you make a very broad and vague definition for the meaning of "evolution", then it will be useless.
Evolution didn't come to be in order to explain how fish loses eyes. Evolution is presented to the public as a theory that can explain the origin of all species, especially the human species.
It is very obvious that the process of fish losing its eyes, has nothing to do with a process that would allow emergence of new organisms. Humans didn't come to be because of the ancestor losing information and body organs. Species didn't come to be because of first replicating cell losing information and body parts.
So if you aren't cabaple to make that distinction, that there is a HUUUGE difference between losing existing information and gaining new information, and that you can't use one to prove the other... it's like using the fact that apples fall from trees due to gravity to claim that apples can also fly up due to gravity... now if you don't see the difference between the two and you mixed it up together, and your holy scientists with their "books" and "research" weren't able to explain that difference, or they themselves don't understand the difference... then you all have a very big problem.



Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:37 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
is there an economist here? some people with knowledge in economics?



Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:20 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Hoarder

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2104
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 81
Thanked: 787 times in 609 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Harry Marks is an economist, but he seems to be busy, hasn't posted lately.



Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:31 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Person123 wrote:
Evolution is presented to the public as a theory that can explain the origin of all species


Not true. The arrogance of such a wholesome explanation is a red herring. It simply isn't true. The breadth of explanation proposed is how species have evolved over time. That doesn't include how they originally came to be.

The difference between a 2 chamber heart and a 3 chamber heart might very well be 3,000 megabytes of information in the way the we currently process information on silicon. But it is a single mutation(quaternary rather than binary deviation) in how genetic information is encoded. But again, this is a red herring. This isn't how it works. Dividing the total genome by a percentage doesn't give you the amount of useful information. Simple math. Google research. Armchair logic.

It's our downfall. Real education is behind a paywall, and all that's left are self-educated googlites that don't recognize the inherent confirmation bias. Whatever you wish to be true, google it and go down the rabbit hole.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:03 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank