Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

Status
Not open for further replies.

redwards

I doubt it.
Dec 3, 2008
111
7
Atlanta, GA
✟7,772.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ahhh, you're happy with his performance already.

I guess I'll go back to keeping atheists in their place of back-patting one-liners? How boring to live amongst lemmings awaiting the rush to the cliffs.

You have seen what secularism has done to one in four teen girls right? Consult the Centers for Disease Control for the numbers. You'll find them under STD's. And of course the ubiquity of violence in our "public" schools?

There's an old bit of advice, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Maybe you heard it said in the Godfather part two? I know that movie is popular in the dorms.



:cool:

You have evidence that secular society and STD saturation are correlated? Or that secularism and STDs are correlated? I'd love to see that.
 
Upvote 0

Penumbra

Traveler
Dec 3, 2008
2,658
135
United States
✟11,036.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I get the impression that more people in this topic, nay this entire forum, are opposed to people like Polycarp_fan, which I find surprising.
Interestingly, I have noticed the opposite.

In the society and non-Christian religion subforum, I think the majority are not fundamentalists. I suppose other religions, debates on ethics and science, and so forth, attract a certain kind of Christian more than others.

But when I venture into other areas of the forum that have much fewer non-Christians present, there seems to be a lot more fundamentalism around. Just what I've noticed so far.

-Lyn
 
Upvote 0

roflcopter101

Zero Gravitas
Dec 16, 2008
588
22
San Jose, CA
✟8,374.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Polycarp_fan said:
Ahhh, you're happy with his performance already.

Well, I may not like what a person says, but I like the finesse with which he/she says it.

I guess I'll go back to keeping atheists in their place of back-patting one-liners? How boring to live amongst lemmings awaiting the rush to the cliffs.

Wha?

You have seen what secularism has done to one in four teen girls right? Consult the Centers for Disease Control for the numbers. You'll find them under STD's. And of course the ubiquity of violence in our "public" schools?

I believe that the Pope is opposed to condoms, which are right now one of the most effective options of preventing STDs, apart from abstinence. However, I think that the criticisms from the APA, AMA, NAoSP, and NAMBLA will agree. Not so much for NAMBLA, though.

There's an old bit of advice, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Maybe you heard it said in the Godfather part two? I know that movie is popular in the dorms.

Is that the one where the lady gets killed by the car-bomb? I think I watched a bit of it on HBO before I switched to the Daily Show. I'll remember to watch it when I graduate from high school.
Which reminds me: that John Lennox is a pro debater.
 
Upvote 0

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟22,024.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You have evidence that secular society and STD saturation are correlated? Or that secularism and STDs are correlated? I'd love to see that.


I am quite positive that the lack of real sex education in place of abstinence only is one of the contributing benefactors to STDs because abstinence only is unrealistic and many teens have sex anyway becuse hormones and peer presure are stronger then jesus. If they are going to have sex, they might as well wear a rubber.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am quite positive that the lack of real sex education in place of abstinence only is one of the contributing benefactors to STDs

You must have been to a high school in a very long time.

because abstinence only is unrealistic and many teens have sex anyway

And there yoy have a perfect example of secularism.


becuse hormones and peer presure are stronger then jesus.

Interesting that "back in the day" when kids went to Church, STD's were not a concern of children.

Welcome securalism and welcome millions of abortions, and millions of cases of STD's. And of course the crime rate, violence and the filled to overflowing prison system.

Yeah, let's blame that on Jesus freaks.


If they are going to have sex, they might as well wear a rubber.

And that message is preached from every, school hall, classroom, music video and cell phone in secular culture.

And virginity as a physical condition is now down to elementary grades.

The blame, shame and guilt is placed squarely on the secular culture.

OK, the guilt anyway. The other two are no longer part of secularism.

Now we know what made Sodom and Gomorrah no myth.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
And that message is preached from every, school hall, classroom, music video and cell phone in secular culture.

And virginity as a physical condition is now down to elementary grades.

The blame, shame and guilt is placed squarely on the secular culture.
And we should welcome the blame: virginity is not the prized quality people make it out to be. Sex is one of the most basic instincts we experience, and even those who profess celibacy are just as likely to be promiscuous as those who don't.

You want to know why your STD rates are rising? Because the religious right is stifling your education system and depriving kids of the knowledge that would otherwise prevent infections and unwanted pregnancies.
 
Upvote 0

DeathMagus

Stater of the Obvious
Jul 17, 2007
3,790
244
Right behind you.
✟20,194.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
I'm OK withn that. I see great evidence literally all around us to believe YHWH is the God that created everything.
I think I might be using a more strict set of requirements for evidence. ;)

Creation speaks of a Creator. Design to a designer. Logic to Logos.
See, this is backwards. The reason something is a creation or is designed is because it has a creator or a designer. The logic doesn't flow the other way - You can't say "This was created, therefore a creator exists." Such an argument is circular, since you can't know if something was created without presupposing the creator.

What the big bang shows us is that stuff got moving from a non-moving state. And we know something at rest stays that way unless acted upon. In the science we have at our disposal, something not moving getting moved is not possible "naturally."
It is not possible "naturally" within our current models of the universe. The problem is that we have no model for "before" our universe began expanding. It is erroneous to assume that the laws of our universe apply to the initial stages of the big bang. Indeed, without the presence of time, the very underpinnings of how causality works become very confusing.

I say that in regards to Atheists thinking they have concrete evidence that atheism is sensible. It isn't. It is just emotionalism causing thoughts to move in a direct plain.
You don't think people should have reasons to believe the things they do? If one subscribes to the idea that one should have a reason to believe something, and one finds no evidence for a deity, it is only natural that atheism would become one's tentative conclusion. No one has concrete evidence that atheism is correct, but it is certainly a sensible conclusion to reach given the lack of evidence supporting a deity.

I read Hitchens and Dawkins with no similar reaction, and both men could cause me nausea for what horrors they are bringing upon an already sick world.
Then I guess you're a better man than I? I've got this thing where I think people who publish books should really be above the most basic of logical fallacies, and I think their editors should call them on it as well.
[/quote]

Then education does not garener a person an intellect? Hmm, I think I may like your opinion if that is what you are saying. I can discard Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris (et al) whenever they speak out of discipline.
Not at all. If they're saying he's "no true scientist," then clearly they're wrong. If they're saying he's "no true biologist," then they're clearly right.


I was an atheist while my parents took me to Church a few times as I was growing up. I was an atheist until I tested the views of Christians and atheists. I almost became a Buddhist. I am a Christian now.
Hey, as long as you're happy and the rights of others are preserved, I'm cool with it.


It is an attribute of a Watchmaker to set "it" in motion.
Assuming it was stopped before. All we know is that the universe expanded from a point. We don't know what went on "before" then.

I don't know how long you've been here, but my numbers cause the reactions from atheists that prove they have meaning. But as I've said, only you have asked the right question about it.
Frankly, without some sort of units on the numbers, they become effectively meaningless. I think you need to find a better way of making the point you are attempting to make with your "equation."


But that is not what scientific Christianity is doing. The gaps are not as important as what we can observe and deduce. The evidence looks like a Designer, a Programmer.
Could you be a little more specific? - I want to visit this sub-topic more in-depth.


If science is agnostic, you need to tell that to your absolutist atheist pals. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as well. They are presenting a done deal, so let's move on because science has settled the issue of God, salespitch. Absolutist is the word.
I know that you are mis-attributing Dawkins at least, and possibly the other two. They might be gnostic atheists with regards to specific deities, which is at least a tenable position, as specific deities can be shown to be logically inconsistent. I've never read any quote by them in which they state that there are absolutely no gods, though most would probably say that it is very unlikely that a god exists.


Excuse me? Am I not in the room? "I" am part of "we." I see great solid and defensible reasons for belief in God.
Check my grammar more carefully - my words are correct. I do not see any legitimate evidence, and you do not see any evidence that I think is legitimate. The use of "legitimate" in my original comment refers to my perception and mine alone.


That's a personal opinion that is not backed up by evidence. There are plenty of really smart people that believe there is more then enough evidence for God. Ever notice how many are "Christians?"
Indeed it is an opinion. It also seems to be the scientific consensus.

The lines are so blurred now, from the treatises of the vocal atheists as to be no longer seperable. That's the fault of you guys. Freethinker, Skeptic, Atheist, Agnostic, all blend as one in social work and play.
Perhaps, but that's not my fault. I'm only twenty - I haven't influenced the lexicon that much yet. :p At any rate, I think the best policy is to use words in the most logical manner based upon their constituent parts. "A-theism" literally means "Without belief in god." "A-gnosticism," as near as I can get it, means "Without knowledge." Hence, I don't believe in a god, but I don't know for sure if that is true.


In general? There is far more proof of existence in God. It is the fine-tuning where atheism grasps its voice for endeavor. I see know logical reason to hold atheism as reality.
The fine-tuning argument only makes sense if we assume that humanity is the given and our environment conforms (or was once conformed) to our needs. Suppose it's the other way around - and we conformed to live effectively in our environment?

Besides - The universe is fine-tuned for what?


Well you may be busy with classes, but the three amigos of atheism say it's a done deal. The bird is cooked and ready on the table. And they are not alone.
Could you provide a quote? I think you may be mis-characterizing the position.


Nope. You can't show that as happening from a natural cause. There is no ubiquitous supporting evidence from naturalism. Justice is claw and tooth, stealth and cunning and compassion is non-existent in animal biology. The facts don't make your point.
If compassion is non-existent, then why do we hear reports all the time of animals saving members of other species, and even sacrificing themselves in the process? Why do cats raise puppies that are clearly not their own? Additionally, we are animals and we feel possess compassion and justice.


Extinction is the natural process of human life.
You mean death? Using "extinction" in a poetic manner in the same conversation in which we're discussing biology may not be a great choice.

Yet, we struggle to avoid that at all costs.
We do?

Again, "we" seem to be outside of naturalism.
We have utilized our intelligence to improve our lot faster than naturalism would.

If lions had the numbers, they would have cannibalism as their last meal.
And many humans have been cannibals throughout world history. What's your point?

And I hardly expect evolution from plants to produce humans in the near trillions of years.
I hardly expect it either. Why should we?


Man, you're driving a Model T in an computerized unmanned aircraft age. That position of yours has come and gone. Again. To look at the cosmos and a baby human's face makes mincemeat of the anti-God thesis. Ora baby humback for that matter.
A baby's face proves god? How so?


Those days are long gone my friend. Even Christians are asking the Fundy-zealots to stop already. The new news is better than the old routine. Science is driving us to God as a matter of observed evidence.
Well, I'll just wait until you guys get some. Everything presented so far within the scientific community (and there's been precious little of it) has been trounced.


If that's what you're doing fine. Then please get out of the way and stop all the advertisements about atheism being sensible. It isn't.
I disagree with your personal opinion there. Atheism is quite sensible, and is currently the most responsible position to hold regarding theism, if one's objective is to follow the evidence.

And social darwinism has really got to be buried for the dead thing that it is.
Uh...duh? Who's been advocating social darwinism? It's a ludacris idea based on the "is = ought" fallacy. Why are you bringing it up?

Oh please. Tag lines and rote pop philosophy 101? Please, I'll senmd the mods twn dolars to send to you if you don't bring up Pascal's Wager. AHHH, I just did.
Oh, I'm sorry - did I miss the memo? Does a principle suddenly become worthless once X people know about it? Oh no, wait...that's just you poisoning the well. Why bring up Pascal's Wager? It has so many things wrong with it it never should have been published.

I was just at a seminar in a suburb outside of Chicago (pure midwest) just a few weeks ago, and the Shock-Goths and Skeptics are legion. Truly ubiquitous. And I wasn't even on a High School campus or College the whole time.
What was the seminar covering?

I am only human. Usually being an Atheist follows observable patterns.

Being a Christian, BTW, is probably the most inconvenient lifestyle there is. I love women.

Perhaps, but it is still appropriate to give others the benefit of the doubt when you do not know them. You know, as a common courtesy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟22,024.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Interesting that "back in the day" when kids went to Church, STD's were not a concern of children.
Ignorance make for happy times don't they? whats stds? Of course people aren't going to be concerned with things they don't learn about.
Welcome securalism and welcome millions of abortions, and millions of cases of STD's.
I think you will be stunned to find abortion rates increase in places with abstinence only education. oh and btw, secularism? good one. If your tactic was to bring down your foe by bringing them to your standards by using ism's, well all i can say is i noticed you trying.
And of course the crime rate, violence and the filled to overflowing prison system.

Poverty and over population creates much of the crime. hmmm about that over population. If only thier was a way to stop all these poor children from being born... hmmm
Yeah, let's blame that on Jesus freaks.
I already have.

And that message is preached from every, school hall, classroom, music video and cell phone in secular culture.
8 years ago maybe. and maybe now but not in between.

The blame, shame and guilt is placed squarely on the secular culture.
sorry, its mandated faith based initiatives that fail to understand causality that cause problems.

Now we know what made Sodom and Gomorrah no myth.
yeah lets have sex with angles!!! wha? angles are still kind of mythy to me. At least that's to say i haven't seen one personally or an actual photo/video of one.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don’t recall any scambling or reacting of a scientific nature, although of course all the irreducibly complex examples were refuted. It’s not really surprising that individuals challenged adding this to the education system though,

Oh, so you do now recall scramblings.[/quote]


Not scrambling. Challenges, which were upheld. See the Dover “panda” trial, etc. It was hardly “oh noes, a serious challenge to evolution”, because that would have been done through the proper research. It was more a “oh, they think they can use children to promote the agenda, well not on my watch.”

.

. . there’s only so much time in the day for science as it is, and you don’t want time wasted on false ideas, unless you’re studying that in particular!


Darwinism is one thing, Social Darwinism is another and that needs to be expunged from our schools before our schools are further infected to the point of no cure, as evidenced by its ubiquitous immorality sponsering results.

Well, sure, but show me a science curriculum that teaches social darwinism as anything other than a failed political ideology.

No, not really. They’re two separate concepts. They might be related in what people think they show, but they’re not the same thing.


Behe's black boxes say otherwise. Darwin knew nothing of them. Now science is proclaiming them.

Then Behe’s black box is wrong. I don’t know, I’ve never read the book, but if he says fine tuning and irreducible complexity are the same thing, he’s wrong. I’ve stated what the two concepts are, and they are clearly not the same. (One applies to universal constants, one applies to biological organisms for a start). Science certainly isn’t proclaiming ID. It recognises that the universe allows for life to exist, but as it’s life doing the observing, that’s kind of a dur.
Not at all. Science is agnostic.

How refreshing an admission. Then tell your atheist buddies to stop using as immutably. It is not helping their cause.

Oh I agree. I’m not a big fan of Dawkins, and I think he comes across as brash and arrogant. Have you ever been in the Creation Evolution forums on this site? Watch someone claim science is atheistic over there and watch them get jumped on by both sides.
Looking at DNA is like looking at chemistry. Complex chemistry, but chemistry following chemical rules.


And that is a good thing in regards to showing evidence for God. We are NOTHING but chemicals. I've talked to water and salt and dirt before and got no response. There was no life within it. Yet break us down to our elements and we are water, salt and elements.

We are also made of self-replicating chemicals. That’s the important bit.
Who knows how many universes there have been where there hasn’t been any life to sit there looking at the stars and wondering what it’s all about.


So your views boil down to how many times mud was thrown against a cosmological wall and we stuck? Man I'm trying to see the worth in atheism, but it is really tough when you present argument like that.

It’s a possibility. We don’t know, so we can’t say for sure, but yeah, I have no problem considering myself as cosmic mud J There’s no worth in atheism as a concept in that sense. It doesn’t make for a fluffy feel-good factor. People don’t become atheists to get them through a troubling time (though they may become atheists because of a troubling time). They become atheists (or never become theists) purely because they can see no evidence or reason for any gods. I mean, I’d like to believe there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or that unicorns exist (how cool would it be to ride a unicorn?), but just because I want it to be true, doesn’t it is. Similarly, I’d love the speed of light to not be the speed limit for everything, but it doesn’t mean I go around saying Einstein was wrong.

So you’ve got nothing to say on fine-tuning then.


Huh? Are we at the impasse of progresive comeback where evidence is shown and the response is where's your proof? Nyah, nyah, nuh, nyah nah, is making you atheists look out of the loop. Your post shows that I am responding about fine-tuning.

I’d never ask for proof unless we were talking mathmatics. I’d ask for evidence. If you provide it, I can’t claim that you didn’t! What you said was: “The odds are not favoring luck becoming us. God didn't throw dice. Or if you will, the cause of it all.” Which doesn’t really address the point that fine tuning as a concept is backwards. It’s fine if that’s what you believe, but it’s not evidence, nor is in addressing the point.

So why are there no irreducibly complex examples then?

What influence has Behe had outside of the ID movement? What has been changed since this was proposed by him?


Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Stephen Meyer are presenting a scientific perspective and bringing along with that Behe's little black boxes. That you deny that is not my problem. I was informed about this guy last year from his talks at Berkeley I found this about that: UC Berkeley Events Calendar: Francis Collins: The Language of God

Can you show me papers written by Collins or Meyer that use irreducible complexity? I’m aware that they have written popular science books that express both the science they have discovered and their faith in God, but this is not the same thing. This is showing to a lay audience that doing science doesn’t mean denying your faith (and I think this is a good thing) but it’s not the same as publishing scientific research.



He lost his daughter after he wrote Origin of the Species. And even if he had not, we could look at his claims and see if they held water (they do, largely.


OK. But the loss of his daughter prompted the bad God outcome.

I don’t know if he ever considered God “bad”, as such. It was just that he couldn’t reconcile the knowledge that there was an omnipotent deity out there, when his young daughter died like she did, so he came to the conclusion that the deity could not exist, as he obviously couldn’t deny his daughter’s death. But still, none of this is relevant, as I said. Even if Darwin wrote Origin as way to get back at God, if what he said could be verified as true (ie organisms are selected for environmental fitness) then it stays true.

Within cells is a more complex workings. And within those complexities is more complexities. Behe is awesome for his "observations."

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information" in Bruce Gordon and William Dembski, editors, THE NATURE OF NATURE (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009).
ABSTRACT: Laws of nature are universal in scope, hold with unfailing regularity, and receive support from a wide array of facts and observations. The Law of Conservation of Information (LCI) is such a law. LCI characterizes the information costs that searches incur in outperforming blind search. Searches that operate by Darwinian selection, for instance, often significantly outperform blind search. But when they do, it is because they exploit information supplied by a fitness function— information that is unavailable to blind search. Searches that have a greater probability of success than blind search do not just magically materialize. They form by some process. According to LCI, any such search-forming process must build into the search at least as much information as the search displays in raising the probability of success. More formally, LCI states that raising the probability of success of a search by a factor of [FONT='Times New Roman', Times, serif]q/p (> 1) incurs an information cost of at least [FONT='Times New Roman', Times, serif]log(q/p).[/font] LCI shows that information is a commodity that, like money, obeys strict accounting principles. This paper proves three conservation of information theorems: a function-theoretic, a measure-theoretic, and a fitness-theoretic version. These are representative of conservation of information theorems in general. Such theorems provide the theoretical underpinnings for the Law of Conservation of Information. Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms.[/FONT]

I’d need to have a look at the paper, to comment. I’m surprised that if this law does exist this is the first I’ve heard of it though.

Of course, but that healthy mindset should have no problem with facing up with the evidence. There should be no need for taking evolution off the curriculumn, or putting silly stickers on textbooks, or demanding equal time for false ideas.


When atheists and secularists and Humanists teachers use the opportunity to preach their dogmatic views on life and reality, then that needs to countered and there is ONLY one place that can happen. The disclaimers NEED to be on the walls of the classrooms NOT just the textbooks. Social Darwinism is an utter failure based ON scientific evolution and social measured outcomes.

Again, which schools are teaching social Darwinism, rather than the Theory of Evolution?

I’m not aware of any scientist presenting evidence for God. There are those like Collins who see God reflected in their work, but that’s not the same thing.


Time to start reading their works.

Maybe. Any papers (not pop science books)?

Not sure what you mean. The scientific community are the ones researching science. They then publish their results in papers. They don’t have to be part of a university, or employed in a particular field, and you don’t have to publish to be doing science, but that’s where it gets reviewed and investigated.


By bobbleheads. Peer reviewed has shown itself a closed system.

Demonstrate this please. I’ve heard this claim lots of times, but no one has been able to show a paper that was rejected simply because of the view it presented. I’ve seen plenty rejected because they were just plain bad though. Peer review might not be perfect, but it’s a good system. Science is all about examining claims, checking and falsifying them. If research can’t stand up to that, it’s bad research.

Obviously there’s been lots of papers published on evolution, but I’m not aware of many particularly counteracting ID.


There are court cases that document these occureneces.

Yeah, there are court cases, which demonstrated that ID was creationism lite and had no place in the education system, but I was actually referring to papers.

What gets put on buses is nothing to do with science.


C'mon now, the atheist billboards running around are 100% science selling.


Really? You can find me a paper that says “There is no god, so relax and have a cup of tea” (or whatever it was that the billboards said)? Because if you can, I need to have some strong words with whoever published it.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Originally Posted by MoonLancer Oh trust me, I wouldn't be here if Christians actually stuck around for debates on forums that did not favor them immensely and had more freedom of speech.


Bunk. We get ousted from atheist sites as soon as we start showing atheism for what it is and what it leads society to be.

Our speech slammed down shut. Just like the public forums.

Here we are allowed space for comparisons and notice how free you guys are to debate it. You just can't rely on the F-word and epithets.


:cool:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Really? You can find me a paper that says “There is no god, so relax and have a cup of tea” (or whatever it was that the billboards said)? Because if you can, I need to have some strong words with whoever published it.

As atheists roll out London ads, believers unruffled | csmonitor.com

OATHEIST_P1.jpg

Ariane Sherine created Britain's atheist bus ad campaign.
Andrew Winning/Reuters


Paris - It's the first mass marketing of atheism in Britain – and many in the community of faith say that's just fine.

On Jan. 6 some 800 British red "bendy" buses carried the sign: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

b&wpac4

Trying to stay away
Sep 21, 2008
7,690
478
✟25,295.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Engaged
And of course the crime rate, violence and the filled to overflowing prison system.

Hey. Remember how in the latter part of last year, I kept posting statistics about the violent crime rate and how it's gone down since the 60s? Remember how you finally relented on it, and acknowledged I was correct, and that violent crime had, in fact, gone down since the 60s?

Why are we back to this then?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hey. Remember how in the latter part of last year, I kept posting statistics about the violent crime rate and how it's gone down since the 60s? Remember how you finally relented on it, and acknowledged I was correct, and that violent crime had, in fact, gone down since the 60s?

Why are we back to this then?

Incredibly staggering numbers reduced to huge staggering numbers is not exactly a great support to your position.

:wave:
There, is that better?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.