• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
ascribe2thelord said:
I find it confusing how liberals continually say this or that passage is allegorical, yet refuse to offer an explanation. Tell me what it's an allegory for!
If the story doesn't carry value as myth, then the alternative is that it's value is purely factual history - in other words no more useful to us than all the other bits of factual history that have ever happened. If there is anything valuable we can learn from the flood story, then that lesson can be learned whether it is historical or mythical; it carries all the same worthwhile messages either way. Messages about God wishing to wash the world clean of sin; which he actually did a bit later through baptism. It makes points about how dreadful humanity can be. It makes promises about God caring for creation into the future and associates those with a symbol (the rainbow). And so forth. If the Noah story isn't valuable as myth then it isn't valuable as history either.

And if those (in worldly terms) big events are allegories, then what about the crucifixion itself? Is that an allegory too?
The crucifixion does also have allegorical value. However, unlike the flood, the crucifixion wouldn't leave physical evidence that we can still examine. Therefore it's impossible to show it never happened (unlike the flood). There are a whole heap of reasons why the resurrection story is much closer to a factual account than most of Genesis.

And besides, once you've torn apart the supernatural texts of the Bible, what do you have left? An empty message with no power to change hearts and lives, obviously.
Noone here is tearing apart anything. And it's quite clear the bible's message to change hearts and lives is completely unaffected or even enhanced by a more open reading of Genesis.

That's why more and more Christians are fleeing liberal strongholds for more conservative churches like the SBC, PCUSA, Pentacostal churches &ct.
If they are (I don't have worldwide figures either way) then I suspect that has more to do with people running away from an expectation that they should think for themselves. (Too) many people like easy facts and clear rigid rules - they don't like having to think, discern, and learning to apply basic principles of right and wrong to difficult situations. If they are running to conservative churches are they running to God, or away from him? Given what God himself had to say to the conservative and well established churches of his day I have my opinion on that.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship

You're saying it yourself. So what are you going to do? Reject science and go live in a cave, or reject the Bible and live as an atheist? I don't see a third choice from where you're standing.

Oh, the perils of a God-of-the-gaps framework.

See another misconception God is not the cause of disease, He will allow the enemy to inflict disease apoun some one though. Why? Don't know but the closest answer for that I can give is to tell you to read Job and see what happened there.

What would have happened if Job today had went to a doctor? The doctor would have said "Hmm, rashes, apply this steroid cream to your sores twice a day, this hydrating cream after bathing and before you sleep, and here's some antibiotics for good measure." No mention of God. Which is perfectly fine and proper. Just because something has an addressable scientific cause doesn't mean it doesn't have a supernatural cause.


Wrong. Science is a study of the in-built order of the world. To say that science is of Satan is to say that Satan built order into the world. An abomination. God made the world orderly, and God gave us minds strong and brave enough to categorize and systemize the order around us, and science was the result of that: the result of two acts of divine grace and providence that reflect His character in His creation. Without sin, there would still have been science, for how else would man have been able to "go forth and multiply, and take dominion over creation"?
 
Reactions: Willtor
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
476
40
✟11,829.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
ascribe2thelord said:
Maybe the animals were babies?
I'm afraid you're still a very long way from justifying in rational terms how the ark would have worked.
I find it confusing how liberals continually say this or that passage is allegorical, yet refuse to offer an explanation.
Might I suggest doing a search on this very board? The topic has been discussed many times before with dozens of different falsifications of a literal global flood.
Tell me what it's an allegory for! And if those (in worldly terms) big events are allegories, then what about the crucifixion itself? Is that an allegory too?
No, it's probably factual to a large extent.
 
Upvote 0

Raistlinorr

Veteran
Sep 20, 2005
1,711
50
49
✟17,206.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

What does that have to do with God causing disease or not?
And secondly in Job God allowed satan to cause the boils and all the other stuff in Jobs life to get Job to learn a lesson and in that draw him closer to the Lord. There for going to the doctor would not have been what God wanted Job to do and would most likely not have helped either.


Ahh I never said science was of satan neither did I say it was of God either. I was merely pointing out that some of the answers we are getting might not be of God. Also can you physicaly explain an do the testing required to prove the age of rock or the earth? If so how do you know the knowledge taught to you is absolutely correct?
So your saying before sin Adam and Eve would never have know how to reproduce? That no animal on earth knew how to reproduce?

God bless!
Raist
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
What does that have to do with God causing disease or not?

"Because if the doctor really believed that God was causing disease, he would have known that medicine would've been no good and he wouldn't have prescribed anything! On the other hand the fact that he prescribed medicine shows that he believed microbes caused it, and therefore he used science to push God out of the picture!"

See what I mean?

You can't have it half and half. Either science has pushed God out of the picture in I'd say at least 90% of everyday life; or science can coexist peaceably with God. Up to you to choose what you believe.


This is majorly off-tangent, but to me the doctor would have done the right thing because it would have been the Christian thing to alleviate another person's suffering. Don't you think so?


I can physically explain the testing required to prove the age of the rock. God willing as a physicist (though I doubt it; it seems more a geological thing) I may be able to do it hands-on one day and finally find out whether the scientific creationists are right.

If science gets a conclusion that conclusion will be of God, because it represents an orderly relationship between observables in the universe which God has seen fit to maintain without fail. If science observes that something has happened in the past, and the science performed is reliable, then that observation is of God. Mind you, it may be that the thing never actually happened and God gave us the observation without the actual event (I will not go so far as to say He "deceives". It is an extremely strong word to use.) but it is still God who created the order that enabled the observation.

So your saying before sin Adam and Eve would never have know how to reproduce? That no animal on earth knew how to reproduce?

Adam and Eve would have needed technology to cover the face of the earth and to survive while covering it. Populational growth on that scale needs at the very least food conservation and planning. And agriculture is where a lot of science began - astronomy to predict the seasons, engineering for irrigation, biology obviously, and at a more advanced stage chemistry for plant material post-processing. Not to mention without science they wouldn't be able to use metals at all.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green

I can not always judge the truthfulness of statements made online. Sometimes i don't have the time nor the energy to do the research. Sometimes it is something beyond my ability to understand, sometimes simply difficult to decide.
Often we have to judge the truthfulness of the whole by the partial truth of a piece we can understand and/or know something about. This is the central message of the Augustine quote that floats around the CED debate about Christians talking concerning the things of faith in such a way that heathens discount them because they mishandle the things heathen do know about.
Well, i do know that PCUSA stands for Presbyterian Church USA, i do know that it is liberal, i do know that it has lost approximately 1/3 of it's membership over the last 25 years.
The exodus reduced membership to 2,405,311 as of Dec. 31, 2003 – a loss of 1.85 million members since the PCUSA and its predecessor denominations had a peak membership of 4,254,597 in 1965.
from: http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2004-news/pcusa-membership-loss-in-03.htm

Now what do i do about this?
i can doubt the entire posting, or i can doubt everything ascribe2thelord posts online or subject those postings to a careful screening from now on. which makes more sense?

likewise i know from years of study that the earth is 4+billion years old. i have not only good evidence for it, but theories with consilience. Young Earth Creationists wish me to cast out all of that information and accept two ideas that they say are tied together: the age of the earth and the necessity of the Gospel. Yet i have evidence just here that at least one YEC is sloppy in their research.

Why should i deny the evidence that i understand and embrace their faith which i can not understand based on their testimony that i can see is flawed?

YECists, do you see the problem?
do you care that you represent Jesus before a watching world?
 
Upvote 0

Raistlinorr

Veteran
Sep 20, 2005
1,711
50
49
✟17,206.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Sorry but that argument will not work.
See even if you look stricktly at the athiestic evolution the apeman things used sticks and unchanged rocks to hunt. They also picked different plant foods to eat. They were nomadic/semi nomadic, but yet they managed to survive and populate the world to even the most minor extent.
Do you not think the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden would not have it easier than an apeman thing? I mean after all they had God on their side (this is still suposing they never sinned) and they were in the garden.

Also with evolution at what point do we say yep this was the "allegorical" Adam and Eve stage. Where do we say that this is where man became man?

God bless!
Raist
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Raistlinorr said:
Also can you physicaly explain an do the testing required to prove the age of rock or the earth? If so how do you know the knowledge taught to you is absolutely correct?

I can because I have done it.

Your last sentence is nothing short of a ridiculous appeal to conspiracy that I personally find insulting.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP


The problem is that just because one is not a literalist, one doesn't necessarily have the background in literature to identify genres correctly. So you will find people mixing up terms like allegory, metaphore, parable, myth, legend, figurative, etc. as if they all meant the same thing: "not literal fact".

Strictly speaking, allegory is a genre in which each element directly signifies something. The Parable of the Sower is an example. The sower, the seed and each type of soil has significance.

But there is not really much allegory in scripture. None of the early chapters of Genesis are allegory. They are predominantly myth. And the rest is predominantly legend. Neither myth nor legend have explicit significators as allegory does, so asking for an explanation in those terms: what does the ark stand for? what does the raven stand for? etc. cannot be answered.


And besides, once you've torn apart the supernatural texts of the Bible, what do you have left? An empty message with no power to change hearts and lives, obviously.

That's what YOU think we have. I think that when we identify God only with the supernatural, we have a God-of-the-gaps who is being squeezed into nothingness as the gaps are filled with natural explanations.

I think that when we identify God only with the supernatural, we have a secularized natural world which no longer glorifies God.

I think that when we identify God only with the supernatural, we have rejected the creator of the universe, because we have concluded that nature excludes God.

I think it is high time that all Christians reclaimed the God who created nature and who is reflected in nature and exposed the "nature excludes God" concept for the atheist lie it is.


But if nature reflects its maker, then the messages nature tells us about its making must be honoured and respected as coming from the Creator.


That's why more and more Christians are fleeing liberal strongholds for more conservative churches like the SBC, PCUSA, Pentacostal churches &ct.

First time I've ever seen PCUSA listed as a conservative church.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
gluadys said:
Does it? Always? Do you know this for a fact or are you repeating what someone told you?

Or do you discover what the nature of a biblical text is by becoming conversant in biblical literary genres first?
well if it doresnt you can chose what is and isnt cant you. First of there is no need to look at the times and how stories where written or the biblical literary geners, it was written by the Spirit, which does not speak in literary genres, it only speaks TRUTH. that is why i said it will tell you if it is truth or story or anology ect. you seem to think it was written by man in his view and at his discretion.




so you can not sgow me were it states it is a myth with a lesson in it. i taught that would be the case. of course it is a old story abraham was around a bit after the flood, do you not think all the flood stories from most cultures is from all the earlier dicedents of the flood. this should i think give the story credit as true factual event. Abraham wrote through the Spirit so his version relayed the True events of it. The other stories of it were close but not perfectly told. add on and such which is tipical of stories of true events and untrue events. If you go with your understanding of how to read scripture anything is game on how to read it. you could never no what was true or not.




Myth is a literary genre. It is not the opposite of truth.
it is not the TRUTH. the ONLY TRUTH is what the Spirit spoke since he is TRUTH and only speaks in TRUTH. Other wise we can not trust any of scripture.




Mythical genealogies are common in ancient cultures.
SO WHAT. i doubt they went has far as the scripture go. you can recount Christ all the way to abraham who has a genology to Noah. And i doubt they all are real and can be shown to have been real. i dont know for certain but i fairly sure it is pretty apparent it is a myth.



Not in the flood story. But it is still no problem. Myths were also ways to recount ancient political history.
what do you mean not the flood story. it gives the nations or people and cities. well then written history is all just a mix of lies and truths, who is going to decide which is which.



No line needs to be drawn since myth does not exclude truth. Myth is a way of teaching truth through story.
IT doesnt in most maybe all, BUT God is TRUTH and speaks no LIE. the SPirit guided those who wrote it and So it is not myth at all. unless you want to say man wrote it outside of the Spirit and it is flawed, at which point we can pick and choice what we want out of the mythical bible to help us when we want it. AGAIN show me where it tells you it is a mythical story to help us in life or to help us understand what God is trying to tell us. Myth is getting truth muddled with fairytales to a point it is useless as history put maybe still good for a moral. SO i guess you think the bible is just for moral purposes and not good history. Again where are you going to decide which is which if it does not tell you clearly.
 
Reactions: Gwenyfur
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Schroeder said:
well if it doresnt you can chose what is and isnt cant you.

No you can't. We spend a lot of time discussing science and scripture here---two topics that require a lot of study to understand them well.

We don't often discuss literature, yet the bible is a library containing many literary forms. Literature is another topic that takes a lot of study to understand it well. You cannot pick and choose what style of literature a part of scripture is as if you were drawing a name from a hat. There is a whole school of study called form criticism which is devoted to studying the distinguishing marks of various kinds of literature.




First of there is no need to look at the times and how stories where written or the biblical literary geners, it was written by the Spirit, which does not speak in literary genres, it only speaks TRUTH.

TRUTH is conveyed in literature through some literary form or genre. Since many literary genres are used in scripture, and since the Spirit inspired them, it follows that the Spirit inspired the poetry, parables, prophetic oracles, gospels, epistles, etc. that are found in the scriptures. (These are examples of some of the genres found in the bible.) So, yes, the Spirit does speak in literary genres--many of them. And what the Spirit says in these various literary forms is, indeed, truth.


that is why i said it will tell you if it is truth or story or anology ect. you seem to think it was written by man in his view and at his discretion.

Scripture was written by men (mostly, one of the anonymous authors may have been a women.) Biblical authors were real authors, not secretaries taking dictation. They were moved/inspired by the Spirit to write and they did write.



And that is one of the reasons we can say it is a myth--because that is what an ancient culture would do with a story: tell it over and over again as a myth.

this should i think give the story credit as true factual event.

There may well have been an actual flood. But it was not a global flood as we understand "global".

Abraham wrote through the Spirit so his version relayed the True events of it.

There is no indication that Abraham ever wrote anything. One of the assumptions people make in a culture like ours where most people can read and write, is to assume that writing is the way to make sure a story is passed from one generation to another. But for most of human history it is oral tradition that was the way stories were passed on. The story of the flood we have it in Genesis came from after the reign of Solomon.

The other stories of it were close but not perfectly told. add on and such which is tipical of stories of true events and untrue events.

Since all such stories from ancient times are mythical, there is no criterion for saying one is more true than another as far as events go. But one can be truer than another in terms of what it teaches us about God, and sin and judgment and mercy. I would agree that the biblical story is truest in this regard.


If you go with your understanding of how to read scripture anything is game on how to read it. you could never no what was true or not.

We don't anyway. That is why we need grace and faith to believe what is true.


it is not the TRUTH. the ONLY TRUTH is what the Spirit spoke since he is TRUTH and only speaks in TRUTH. Other wise we can not trust any of scripture.


And we receive the truth the Spirit teaches by grace and by faith, not by knowledge that we can prove. Trust in scripture is a matter of faith.





In some cultures they go much further.



what do you mean not the flood story. it gives the nations or people and cities. well then written history is all just a mix of lies and truths, who is going to decide which is which.

Even a lot of what we consider history is a mix of lies and truth. As the proverb says: History is written by the victors. If we heard what others say about our history, it would look a lot different. Ask aboriginal people about the history of America since Columbus landed. Sounds a lot different than what is written in most textbooks.



IT doesnt in most maybe all, BUT God is TRUTH and speaks no LIE. the SPirit guided those who wrote it and So it is not myth at all.

That scripture is true and Spirit-guided does not exclude that some of it is myth. Myth, as a literary genre, is not the opposite of truth.


AGAIN show me where it tells you it is a mythical story to help us in life or to help us understand what God is trying to tell us.

It shows us by its form, by its content, by its relationship to other myths in the culture of the times. But that will only become obvious to one who takes the time to study ancient literature as literature.



Most of the bible is not history. When it is history, it is often good history. Most of the bible is more concerned with salvation and morals than with history. There is nothing wrong with focusing on moral purposes. After all, how we live is very important to God. We need to know not only that we are to love one another, but also what loving our neighbour looks like in practice. So we know from the ten commandments, for example, that loving our neighbour means not killing or stealing or lying or committing adultury. And from the beatitudes that it does include being merciful, seeking justice and making peace. Proclaiming the gospel and teaching us to walk according to our calling are two of the most important themes in scripture, and they do not require every story in scripture to be history.

One learns which is which through prayer and study.
 
Upvote 0

Mr_Hursh

Regular Member
Feb 26, 2006
130
9
✟22,812.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

Please define "allegorical"

By the by..... why are you so interested in shedding doubt on God's Word?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Mr_Hursh said:
Please define "allegorical"

By the by..... why are you so interested in shedding doubt on God's Word?

What makes you assume he is trying to shed doubt on God's Word? Just because some scripture is allegorical doesn't mean it is not inspired scripture conveying truth God deems it important for us to know.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship

Apemen would have learned how to aim rocks, and intuitively learned that they follow modified parabolic pathways. The fact that they do so reflects basic physics. The time of flight a rock is in the air is mathematically linked to the amount of displacement it undergoes. That is science, whether expressed mathematically or through mentorship training.

Apemen would also have learned how to knap and shape rocks. This involves knowing about cleavage faces and the relative hardness of different minerals. Actually, these terms are expressions of phenomena that are happening at the fundamental, atomic and subatomic level. Flint can be easily chipped into sharp blades because of the mathematical properties of its ionic lattice. Again, science, whether it would have been grasped quantitatively or intuitively.

And of course, the fact that some plants are poisonous and some are not is a basic reflection of biology.

So you have shown that even apemen would have needed to know physics, chemistry, and biology to survive in the world. My point proven by your words. ... science isn't about men in suits peering into complicated equipment and shoving complex equations down the minds of their students. Science at its core is about dependable relationships between observed quantities in nature. When the angle of throwing a rock goes up its height goes up and its range goes down - a relationship between quantities, science. The relative force needed to cut a stone at certain angles is far less than the force required at other angles - another relationship between quantities, science.

And science only exists because God built the world to be scientifically understood. That has been the underpinnings of all Western science from the past until modern times, when atheists have hijacked the dependability of nature to push forward scientism and Christians have followed blindly proclaiming that "science pushes God out of the picture!" without realizing what agenda lies behind this statement.
 
Upvote 0

LoG

Veteran
Site Supporter
May 14, 2005
1,363
118
✟92,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
gluadys said:
What makes you assume he is trying to shed doubt on God's Word? Just because some scripture is allegorical doesn't mean it is not inspired scripture conveying truth God deems it important for us to know.

Ok gluadys, I'll bite. What truth is God coneying to the human race through the flood myth?
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

This is theologically untenable. The Bible is not the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. This has been accepted as doctrine from the earliest days of the Church. The truth manifests himself in social and cultural contexts because he is not abstract, but real. There is no abstract truth that we are trying to get at. There is Jesus Christ. He has always met people where they were. And in ancient times, this included (but was not limited to) the use of myth (or saga, as Barth argues, for precision).

This is why it makes sense to say that the Scriptures were being written by men, even as they were written by God.

Also, call the Holy Spirit he or she, not it, please.


I'm afraid things are not as simple as they appear to be to you.

Schroeder said:
it is not the TRUTH. the ONLY TRUTH is what the Spirit spoke since he is TRUTH and only speaks in TRUTH. Other wise we can not trust any of scripture.

. . .

And even then, it takes some theological work to argue for the authenticity and reliability of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Lion of God said:
Ok gluadys, I'll bite. What truth is God coneying to the human race through the flood myth?

That God cannot tolerate sin, but will bring judgment on wickedness.

That God will show mercy to the righteous.

That the most righteous among us are still sinners, so that simply wiping out the wicked is not a solution to sin.

That God guarantees the orderliness of nature and will sustain it for the wicked as well as the righteous until the end of the world.

That God's promise is as sure as a rainbow after rain.
 
Upvote 0

Raistlinorr

Veteran
Sep 20, 2005
1,711
50
49
✟17,206.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
KerrMetric said:
I can because I have done it.

Your last sentence is nothing short of a ridiculous appeal to conspiracy that I personally find insulting.


You may feel insulted and think it's a conspiracy thing, but realy how do those who first said this is what to look for and this is what you should get, how do they know it was right to begin with?

Ppl have been known to make mistakes and continue with mistakes for years. Unless your now saying scientists are above error?

God bless!
Raist
 
Upvote 0

Raistlinorr

Veteran
Sep 20, 2005
1,711
50
49
✟17,206.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

You don't need to know any of that stuff to throw some thing and watch to see if it hits what you throw it at or not.
Have you never thrown a ball? Did you sit down with paper and pen or calculator to figure out how it's going to fly or did you just throw the thing?
Your making it out to be some major terribly hard thing to throw a ball/rock when it's not. You pick the thing up [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] your arm back and let it fly.

And ppl have blindly followed science pushing God and His glory away and replacing it or trying to replace it with their own. Saying you know how God did this or did that places yourself up to the same knowledge as God, and I'm sorry but I don't think man has the right to proclaim themselves as smart as God. This knowledge of science is not whats going to get any of us to heaven any way.

God bless!
Raist
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Raistlinorr said:
And ppl have blindly followed science pushing God and His glory away and replacing it or trying to replace it with their own.
I disagree. It is entirely possible to do science as a means of better understanding God. This is what I do. God says in the Scriptures that He comes to make Himself known through His Creation.
But if that's the way you're going to view it, then thank goodness people do "blindly follow science." Thanks to science, we have medicine, for example.

Saying you know how God did this or did that places yourself up to the same knowledge as God, and I'm sorry but I don't think man has the right to proclaim themselves as smart as God.
I don't know one scientist who does. Do you?

This knowledge of science is not whats going to get any of us to heaven any way.
Agreed. But are you implying that we stop doing science?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.