Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am going to hazard a guess, and say that you meant thousands and not billions, and that it was dated using carbon dating.Proud Flesh said:Furthermore, it has been shown that the fossil record is not directly in order (the bones are not directly chronological from newest to older), that the dating systems are rather faulty (ever hear of the living turtle they dated to be billions of years old?).
I suggest you learn the scientific meaning of the word theory. you will make yourself look more intelligent when posting on a science forum.Again, this is not to say that I can disprove this theory, but it is to say that it is just that: A THEORY, that DOES take as much faith as creation.
lucaspa said:There is evidence/proof that is argued. You said it yourself what that proof is that is argued: the Bible.
lucaspa said:That does not follow. What science does best is show ideas to be wrong. Science has shown the aether to be wrong, the earth centered solar system to be wrong, special creation to be wrong, etc. In all cases we have proof that those things are wrong.
lucaspa said:What's more, theists over the millenia have demonstrated, to their satisfaction, that various versions of god are wrong: Zeus, Marduk, Osiris, Mithra, Odin all come immediately to mind. There are others. So it is not impossible to show things are wrong either by science or theology. What you are stuck with is that the versions of god believed today -- Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu -- have not been shown to be wrong.
lucaspa said:That's the problem. The Bible is a compilation of times when God did show himself. The Quran is a book where Allah did speak directly to Mohammed. So, we have cases where people have claimed that God has shown himself, but you don't accept those acounts as valid.
lucaspa said:What this boils down to is: since you don't trust others, the only way you will ever know God exists is if He reveals himself to you. This isn't an "us" and "we" here, it's about you. Just you. You need to realize that your views are personal and not universal. That said, it's OK to have your doubts and if you choose not to accept the accounts in the Bible as accurate, that's fine. The only point I want to make is that you realize you are speaking only for you and not some universal standard.
Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES.
Yes, "macro" evolution has been observed. Repeatedly, in the wild and in the laboratory. Google "speciation" to get more reading on the subject than you can handle.Proud Flesh said:Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?
No, the amount of time given for humans to have evolved is NOT much too short a span. Evolution of the eye has been dealt with countless times on this board. It has evolved several times in different species.Proud Flesh said:I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.
Umm...so what?Proud Flesh said:I think micro evolution explains "reptilian" parts within "mammalian" animals. Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.
So the probability of you being born is 1 - certainty.Proud Flesh said:Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.
No, they don't.Proud Flesh said:People who are die-hard for evolution talk as if the first cell could have arranged as easily as putting a log-cabin together.
No, it's not.Proud Flesh said:It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic.
Do what? Produce life from non-life? Because as yet, they don't know how it happened. There are a number of promising lines of investigation, but as of right now, we don't know how it happened, so we can't repeat it.Proud Flesh said:Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?
Sorry, but out-of-context quote mining won't win you much sympathy on these boards. Particularly when you don't understand the quote, as you didn't.Proud Flesh said:"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species
No, there shouldn't be thousands upon thousands of them, because, as Darwin says, the fossil record is very sparse. Fossilisation is a rare event.Proud Flesh said:Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one. Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??
Once again, out-of-context quote mining won't win you any support here. Particularly when those quotes are simply false and misleading, as is the one above from Dr. Wald.Proud Flesh said:"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of spacial creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?!? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition".
-E.J.H. Corner, botanist of Cambridge University.
This is my favorite, though.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. The is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose form non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution".
-Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology.
that's just the thing. the conditions aren't usually right for fossilization. For example, where are all the fossils of the passenger pigeon?Proud Flesh said:Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right... and I certainly do understand the quotes and the information.
of course they do, they diverge into new species. you don't get dogs becoming cats or any of that silliness, you get mesonyx diverging into canid and felid branches, you get branches of reptiles diverging into numerous species of therapsids, you get therapsids diverging into mammalian, monotreme and marsupial branches, and so on.As for the differentiation between species and types of animals, I admited and do admit that I don't know the proper terms. But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals.
the new species that are discovered are just newly discovered species, however we have observed speciation, that is emergence of a new distinct species from older ones. As for "why" the weed needed to change, this is not how evolution works - and so there is no answer to your question since it is meaningless. The weed just changed. Natural selection will decide whether that change was for the better or not.Proud Flesh said:Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?
this is where we can use clever things like bilateral symmetry to piece things together. If something is there on the left, it is there on the right too, so unless you have been unfortunate enough to find yourself with a neanderthal hunchback of notre dame, the reconstruction should be accurate. A good understanding of science can deal with the rest.I am afraid I misspoke. I did not mean that we should get rid of forensic evidence. What I meant to get across is that the forensic evidence is often twisted to fit into a Macro-evolutionary proof system. I don't think the evidence is very strong. Have you ever actually seen some of the "cavemen", "neanderthal" skeletons we have? They're almost totally plaster of paris (sp.?). Other "pre human" civilizations are nothing more than early, but still HUMAN places... with religions, burial grounds, music, etc.
not really. There are a couple of things here, first of all, the evolution of something like the eye is remarkably simple, since small changes repeatedly make a significant difference, and there would have been massive selective pressure on something like eyes, since they are just such a useful tool to have in the right conditions. The next thing is the evolution of evolvability - another factor which itself allows a relatively rapid pace of evolution where nescessary. Then you need to think about the timespan. It is easy to say a billion, but if you counted to a bilion, with one number per second, non stop - no sleeping, eating or anything, it would still take you 31 years.I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.
microevolution explains what sorry? the existance of therapsids with a double jaw joint and so on? absolutely, I agree with you 100%, lots and lots of microevolution over millions of yearsI think micro evolution explains "reptilian" parts within "mammalian" animals. Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.
just as are the statistical analyses of the existance of life. As you can see, statistics cannot be used to defend a position such as "life cannot get here through naturalistic processes" since by the same argument, neither could you.Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.
no, scientists do not talk as if the first cell was so easy, note here that there was a long process consisting of many steps that led to the formation of the earliest cells - or what we would recognise as life.Besides, look deep into a human body. The complexities are endless. People who are die-hard for evolution talk as if the first cell could have arranged as easily as putting a log-cabin together. It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic. Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?
that was 150 years ago, things have changed alot since then."Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species
because that is not how it works. Clearly you do not understand the "laws of genetics" if you think such a thing happens; Do you ever see chinese people spontaneously giving birth to african babies? caucasians popping native american children? chihuauas giving birth to wolves?Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one. Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??
Sorry, but fossilzation is extremely rare.Proud Flesh said:Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right... and I certainly do understand the quotes and the information. As for the differentiation between species and types of animals, I admited and do admit that I don't know the proper terms. But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals. As for everyone else about lizards, birds, etc. thank you for the readings.
But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals.
Very good! Yes, the discussion is about how God created, not whether God created. You want to argue the existence of God, go to the Apologetics Forum.Proud Flesh said:I do know that we were made in God's image, and that's what matters. Not HOW we are here, but WHY we are here.
1. See the thread "Observed Speciation" That's observed macroevolution.First of all, evolution most certainly does take belief and faith, because it has NOT been observed, at least not MACRO evolution. I would think you evolutionists would know that.
There is no way to calculate the odds you mention. Remember, natural selection is a process to get design. So, with natural selection to do the designing, there is no way to say that intelligence is required.It is my thought that if evolution is true, the odds of it happening without intelligent design is statistically impossible. Either we were directly created in some way, or God simply used evolution to bring humans about.
But then the rest of it falls apart. After all, the earth wasn't here before the sun, was it? Nor was the earth around before the stars. As a sequence of events, Genesis 1 is very bad, but then, it wasn't intended as a sequence of events for modern science. To see the sequence of events depicted in Genesis 1, you need to look at the Enuma Elish. Then it all becomes clear.By the way, the story in Genesis does go along with the scientific story of how the earth came to be rather well, as allegory; remarkably so sometimes. "Let there be Light"... sounds much like the Big Bang, to me...
Yes you did when you said Genesis 1 matched science. You also said it when you said evolution required intelligent design. Sorry, but your own words labeled you as a creationist. Perhaps an Old Earth Creationist or an Intelligent Design creationist, but still a creationist.Proud Flesh said:First of all, I would like to say again that I did not call myself directly a creationist.
Proud, I and others have referenced you to the thread "Observed Speciation". Yes, speciation has been observed. Both in the lab and in the wild. Watched from where you had one species until you have a different one.Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?
What we are saying is that forensic science also deals with events in the past that no one observed, but you have no trouble accepting that we can figure out what happened. IOW, your depiction of the limits of science is wrong. As long as an event leaves evidence that is in the present, we can figure out what happened even if we weren't there. This is because the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. To say anything else denies cause and effect.I am afraid I misspoke. I did not mean that we should get rid of forensic evidence. What I meant to get across is that the forensic evidence is often twisted to fit into a Macro-evolutionary proof system.
That you don't think the evidence is strong is based on the fact that you don't know much of the evidence. Yes, I've seen many of the skeletons. I've visited both the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History. Both have just the actual bones on display of several examples of hominin fossils. Cleveland has Turkana Boy and AMNH has Lucy, for example. Also, remember that humans are symmetrical, so if you have the left upper arm bone, you know what the right upper arm bone looks like: it is the mirror image. I've posted a list of transitional individuals in our ancestry several times, would you like me to do so again here?I don't think the evidence is very strong. Have you ever actually seen some of the "cavemen", "neanderthal" skeletons we have? They're almost totally plaster of paris (sp.?). Other "pre human" civilizations are nothing more than early, but still HUMAN places... with religions, burial grounds, music, etc.
There is more than enough time. Recent experiments looking at natural selection show it can operate at speeds up to 10,000 times that seen in the fossil record. The question is not whether there was enough time, but rather why evolution was so much slower than it can happen.I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.
What you described is not a species, but rather a classification of groups of species. Reptiles and birds are Classes. Now, ape is an Family, and in fact humans are members of that family. So, yes, under the classification, humasn are apes. Donkeys and horses are genera, the next step up from species. There are at least 3 species of horses and 2 of donkeys.Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.
Let's open it again. If you use that argument, then the odds of anything that exists is irrelevant. Creationists use statistics to show that it is impossible to exist by chance. But, as you are beginning to see, the statistics used to say that are flawed. If we calculate the odds of you existing by chance -- using the same calculations used by creationists -- then you were specially created and not born from your parents.Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.
That's fine. Natural selection can generate complexities.Besides, look deep into a human body. The complexities are endless.
1. But it didn't come by accident! Natural selection is not chance!It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic. Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?
No, we've found thousands now. http://www.christianforums.com/t43227 In fact, finding Archeopteryx in 1865 was strong support for the theory. BTW, you noticed that Darwin did give a reason for the failure to find intermediates. Well, it's 145 years since Origin came out. Both observed speciation and abundant intermediate fossils are now know. In science, Proud, you always have to check to make sure new data hasn't shown old statements to be wrong."Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species
Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one.
The alleles for apes are long gone from the population. Recessive alleles (alleles are different variants of genes) are not holdovers from an evolutionary past. They are simply alleles that aren't expressed if there is a dominant allele.Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??
BaNaNasRuS said:In the fact of if god exist or not and saying that theres proof that he does in the bible is not accurate as I stated the bible could be real or not we dont know, for all we know god could just be a main character in the bible, who knows? No one. Exactly.
Sorry, but this doesn't hold. Science and religion study two different things. Saying that science is wise but religion isn't ignores that science can't study what religion does.Science wise yes, religion no
But then theists decided it was wrong. That's the point. Theists disproved, to their satistfaction, that Zeus doesn't exist. From this you can conclude:Really? Where is it said, or better put proven that Zeus and all those other gods dont exist??? Its cant be proven, Greek mythology is to us, (this time in the world) fiction. But back then it was there religion, they believed as you all do in god.
You have to prove it was made up. That's what we are certain of. Now, theists managed to disprove that the oral traditions and witten accounts of Zeus were false and made up. So they can do so. You have to ask yourself, why haven't they done the same with the Bible?It cant be proven it was written or said orally as like the bible, it could all be real or it could all be made up.
1. Facts are not "proven" by science. Facts are simply repeated observations. Occasionally they too can be wrong. For about 10 years all the repeated observations were that humans have 48 chromosomes. We actually have 46.And another note, I never said its not impossible to show things wrong by science, its obvious that everything that is fact can be proven by science, since the existence of god cannot be proven, its just something people believe in.
you don't know. Or rather, you don't accept that they are accurate. Don't extrapolate your doubt to a universal condition.Yeah I know the bible and the Quran state that they did show themselves to other people and et cetera. But like I said, we dont know if the bible is fiction or nonfiction.
1. Most people don't get thrown into asylums. Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism) and CS Lewis, as just two famous examples, were never considered insane. The people considered insane have other behaviors that label them insane. If you look around these boards, you will find dozens of sane people who say they have personal experience of God.As for the people who claim god spoke to them, fun how people can speak to god, but when god speaks to them, they get thrown in the loony bin in most case, and how do you know they arent just making it up to get attention or that they are really crazy?
You are confusing evidence and proof. Evidence is simply information backing a position. Proof is what you accept as overwhelming evidence such that you can't doubt the position. The existence of God has evidence. However, since you don't accept the evidence as valid, you don't have proof. For those who do accept the evidence as valid, they do have proof.Yes it is entirely possible that god did talk to them, but they cant prove it. There is no evidence showing he exist; the bible doesnt count as evidence because that cant be proven either.
That is denied by the everything above. You don't trust people when they say they have experience of God. You just said "they can't prove it". But if you trust them, their word is proof.I trust others, completely; I trust them till I figure it out for my self.
What is this proof that God does not exist? Please post the peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves God does not exist.And I said in my last post, that I dont believe in god, theres no proof that he exist, only that he doesnt.
And it is an us we, not you, or
me. Everyone knows what fact, evolution, belief, god means and other words too hey lets play a game.
A. Evolution
- B. God
- C. Fact
- D. Belief
And I'm saying that statement is wrong on a couple of points. That "we will never know" is a belief. How can you speak for all the future? You can't say that the data will always be absent. Right now, science doesn't know.I was saying, god could exist or he couldnt, we will never know, and that the bible could be fiction or nonfiction, we will never know
What is "rock solid evidence" to you? This is the key to your position. And where you switch claims. Here you are admitting there is evidence, but that it isn't "rock hard solid". But that depends on what you require for rock hard solid, doesn't it? Since that requirement is only your judgement, your statement isn't universal.Universal standards yes, it is fact that they can never be proven without hard rock solid evidence.
Wait a minute. If it is your personal belief, then why do you call theists "brainwashed". After all, a belief can be wrong, can't it?My personal belief is there is no god at all. and that all who do have been brain-washed when you were younger by your parents when they made you go to church every Sunday.
Notice that "if the elements are right". Of 1,000 dead human bodies, how many of those are going to have the elements right? Very few if any at all.Proud Flesh said:Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right.
But they do. See below for a picture showing transitionals of one snail turining into another. Click on it to enlarge.But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals. As for everyone else about lizards, birds, etc. thank you for the readings.
lucaspa said:You have two different claims here:
1. There is no evidence.
2. The Bible is not accurate and therefore isn't evidence.
So, do you see what you are doing? Yes, the Bible is evidence. If it weren't you wouldn't have to try to deny it.
lucaspa said:Sorry, but this doesn't hold. Science and religion study two different things. Saying that science is wise but religion isn't ignores that science can't study what religion does.
lucaspa said:What did we 'prove". We proved that the earth is not the center of the universe. IOW, we disproved the statement "the earth is the center of the universe." Now, what we have is the statement "God exists". Science cannot disprove it.
lucaspa said:
Science does not "prove" the way you say it does. The only certain statements in science are the negative ones. The earth is not flat. The aether does not exist. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. Each species was not specially created.
lucaspa said:But then theists decided it was wrong. That's the point. Theists disproved, to their satistfaction, that Zeus doesn't exist. From this you can conclude:
lucaspa said:
1. Theists are honest enough to disprove a deity if the evidence is against it.
2. You don't have any idea how theists did that. You need to find out.
3. Those same honest theists can't seem to disprove Yahweh.
lucaspa said:You have to ask yourself, why haven't they done the same with the Bible?
lucaspa said:1. Facts are not "proven" by science. Facts are simply repeated observations. Occasionally they too can be wrong. For about 10 years all the repeated observations were that humans have 48 chromosomes. We actually have 46.
lucaspa said:2. That God does not exist is also 'just something people believe in". Since the only certain things in science are what we have shown to be wrong, that "God exists" has not been shown to be wrong means that "God does not exist" is also a belief.
lucaspa said:you don't know. Or rather, you don't accept that they are accurate. Don't extrapolate your doubt to a universal condition.
lucaspa said:1. Most people don't get thrown into asylums. Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism) and CS Lewis, as just two famous examples, were never considered insane. The people considered insane have other behaviors that label them insane. If you look around these boards, you will find dozens of sane people who say they have personal experience of God.
lucaspa said:2. How do you know they are making it up? What reason do you have to doubt them except that they say they communicate with God. And you can't use that criteria without using circular logic.
lucaspa said:You are confusing evidence and proof. Evidence is simply information backing a position. Proof is what you accept as overwhelming evidence such that you can't doubt the position. The existence of God has evidence. However, since you don't accept the evidence as valid, you don't have proof. For those who do accept the evidence as valid, they do have proof.
lucaspa said:As I said, the only evidence you would consider as "proof" is your personal experience of God. But that is a biased requirement to qualify as evidence in the atheism/theism discussion.
lucaspa said:
lucaspa said:That is denied by the everything above. You don't trust people when they say they have experience of God. You just said "they can't prove it". But if you trust them, their word is proof.
lucaspa said:What is this proof that God does not exist? Please post the peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves God does not exist.
lucaspa said:It's not a game. You beleive God doesn't exist, but you don't have proof. You say the Bible is made up, but can't prove it. You say that people who have experience of God are either insane or making it up, but can't prove it.
lucaspa said:And I'm saying that statement is wrong on a couple of points. That "we will never know" is a belief. How can you speak for all the future? You can't say that the data will always be absent. Right now, science doesn't know.
lucaspa said:What is "rock solid evidence" to you? This is the key to your position. And where you switch claims. Here you are admitting there is evidence, but that it isn't "rock hard solid". But that depends on what you require for rock hard solid, doesn't it? Since that requirement is only your judgement, your statement isn't universal
lucaspa said:Wait a minute. If it is your personal belief, then why do you call theists "brainwashed". After all, a belief can be wrong, can't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?