Human Evolution

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah except Y2K was a money making IT industry/consulting conspiracy .. not a scientific one. I recall, at the time, being in the 'that's a load of total rubbish' camp .. Twas pure politics based on a complete lack of technical systems knowledge.
Therefore: Zero out of 13, I'm afraid!

It was definitely a real issue for some systems.

As I was completing university I was working two part-time jobs. One of the companies was a small liquor retailer, which had an ancient and custom HP-Unix database tracking forward orders and customer delivery schedules (among other things).

Around the first third of 1999, we started getting point of sale and backend system crashes. It turned out the database couldn't process orders for delivery beyond 31 December 1999 - from what I remember it basically read it as a null entry and would enter a look up loop.

The company kludged a fix by temporarily setting the database back to 1989 (although that caused all sorts of other issues). HP eventually produced a patch, but there was a good chunk of time where Y2K was a real pain for us.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
doubtingmerle said:
... What is the ultimate thing that drove this all? We don’t know. Perhaps there is an infinite series of causation that never ends. Or perhaps, at root, there is a circular causation where A causes B that causes C that causes A ad infinitum. Or perhaps there is some root cause of everything, A, that simply is, and could not be otherwise. Perhaps the root cause is nothing more than, “Things happen.”
So, we don't know.

So, why do you then go on to indulge in a bunch of speculative 'perhaps' gobbledygook?
doubtingmerle said:
Regardless of whether the root cause is a distinct something (A) or a circular something (ABC), an infinite regress, or things just happening, let’s call this root cause of any physics the first cause.
Whaa???? You started out with a 'we don't know'. Yet we somehow, mysteriously, then suddenly have the implied assertion of the existence something called 'a root cause'??

Then, even worse, you go on and morph this miraculous 'root cause' into a 'first cause' and then associate it with Physics .. all with zero evidence????????!!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
No.

God didn't have to resort to deception to configure His universe like it is.

If you see deception in God's handiwork, perhaps you need to reevaluate your perspective.
Well said! A few Christians need to hear that too!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It was definitely a real issue for some systems.
Because the pre-emptive recommended technical solutions were not implemented (at least that's what happened where I was working).

Gene2memE said:
As I was completing university I was working two part-time jobs. One of the companies was a small liquor retailer, which had an ancient and custom HP-Unix database tracking forward orders and customer delivery schedules (among other things).

Around the first third of 1999, we started getting point of sale and backend system crashes. It turned out the database couldn't process orders for delivery beyond 31 December 1999 - from what I remember it basically read it as a null entry and would enter a look up loop.

The company kludged a fix by temporarily setting the database back to 1989 (although that caused all sorts of other issues). HP eventually produced a patch, but there was a good chunk of time where Y2K was a real pain for us.
Ok .. fair enough .. (accepted .. because of the evidence presented in your case).
One has to wonder why HP didn't implement 'the patch' prior to the problem showing up though(?)

Either 1 out of 13 or 0 out of 13, experience dependent.

In my case, the world didn't come crashing down as predicted in the build-up hype.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
One has to wonder why HP didn't implement 'the patch' prior to the problem showing up though(?)

Probably because it was a system from the early to mid 1980s and I don't think had been updated by the company since then. I suspect the number of users was so low that it was way down on the priority list for HP to issue a patch for.

The company wasn't exactly running at the cutting edge - managers were still taking those chunky tape drives home with them in the evening, because they didn't trust the servers to perform overnight backups.

The retailer got swallowed up by a supermarket chain shortly before Christmas 2000. Which was fun. When we did stocktake, we found mountains of untracked/excess inventory. Small wonder they'd been failing, there were no records or item numbers for nearly a third of our stock.

We got to the point where anything without a price/POS number got piled into the car park and sold between Christmas and New Years Eve. For whatever we thought it was worth. I bought enough wine that I still had stuff cellared a decade later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Don't believe all that you hear then. :)
A fact is more just a convenient category of knowledge. The 'how' something becomes 'fact' is the more interesting conversation .. (IMO).

Who is the audience for 'a fact', when there's no-one to know about it being one, then?
Oh .. of course .. :doh:.. A belief must follow that question.
Who cares who is the audience, as for it being a fact? I'd even say the same, for objective fact. In truth, there is always an audience, and that one audience is who makes fact fact. Maybe that would help you with your thesis.

Gives me some idea of your answer for, "if a tree falls in the forest...."
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Who cares who is the audience, as for it being a fact? I'd even say the same, for objective fact. In truth, there is always an audience, and that one audience is who makes fact fact. Maybe that would help you with your thesis.
(Obviously not ..)
Mark Quayle said:
Gives me some idea of your answer for, "if a tree falls in the forest...."
To which you already know my answer (which wasn't intended as being 'funny', btw):
SelfSim said:
"If a tree falls in the woods, does it make sound?": .. Of course it does, because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falling in a woods, does what we mean by making sound.
The mind dependence of all of that could not possibly be more obvious, it's a hypothetical tree for crying out loud!
Or, you may also find this one along the same lines:
Descartes once said:

"I think, therefore I am", ("cogito ergo sum"), but logically, he should have said:
"I think, therefore I think that I am".

(He got the logic wrong). :eek: :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
To put the plan of salvation in the stars.
Wouldn't it be easier just to get a website? Imagine a heavenly Internet feed coming through a wormhole filled with amazing insights. A God who wanted our attention could quickly bring everybodies attention to dwell on his every post. And if there was interactive dialog with the Creator God through that wormhole? Count me in! I know a lot of questions I would ask.

But all that is an evasion from the issue that we are discussing. The universe is filled with evidence that it is very old. And there is an amazing consistency to that evidence. We now know that the universe is 13.72 billion years old. Yes, we know it to an accuracy of 4 decimal points. That is because there is so much consistent evidence, a consensus has built around this number.

And how do you explain all that? We were looking at just one of the evidences, SN 1987A, and you tried a couple of failed explanations. No, SN 1987A did not move 160,000 light years away from us in the last 45 years. No, there is no wormhole between SN 1987A and us. No, God did not miraculous transmit the light from SN 1987A to earth.

And if you repeat such miraculous claims for every evidence out there, how is it that all those miracles align so closely on the age of the universe? If God did it that way, knowing the universe was only 6000 or so years old, he would need to know that this was deceptive.

And so you turn to a different claim, the claim that the stars somehow cryptically tell the story of salvation. Why would a God rely on cryptically arranging stars in the background, when he could simply get an email address?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What I responded to was you saying you see two possible causes. Both involved a supposed first cause, and none of the others you refer to in your article. So, you ignored them. Notice I said, "here, at least", in my comment —not, "there, in your article". Who isn't reading?
Sir, we have discussed my webpage on God several times. (Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free) You said you read it. There I made it clear what I meant by a first cause without a mind. You simply ignore it and pretend I never said it. So I copied the pertinent section here. In no sense is the "first cause without a mind" that I refer to supernatural. And yet you simply ignore that, and insist on calling this "first cause without a mind" supernatural or "mere mechanical fact". I have told you multiple times that this is not what I am saying. None of that stops you from making stuff up and pretending I am saying the stuff you make up.

And you wander why people read your stuff and shake their heads in sorrow.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
SelfSim, could it be that your posts are coming from a "simulated self" pretending to be a Humanist? I have yet to see you write a single post in favor of humanism or evolutionary science.

If you would like to be identified as a Humanist, please tell us why you identify as a Humanist, and what you value in humanism.

So, we don't know.
Correct. Nobody knows what ultimately is behind the Big Bang.

But, as I say at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free, we can be quite certain that the universe did come from a Big Bang. The evidence indicates this Big Bang was most likely caused by quantum effects in a vast cosmic inflation.

As far as we can tell, once cosmic inflation gets going it is very hard to stop. So once we postulate cosmic inflation, then we are faced with the likelihood of cosmic inflation that grows exponentially ever after, creating untold number of universes. You can learn more about that here:


See also Six Arguments That a Multiverse Is More Probable Than a God • Richard Carrier.

At my webpage, I then go on to ask what caused this cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics. Ultimately there must be some explanation for why that was happening. And yes, nobody really knows. But scientists are probing even that question.

So, why do you then go on to indulge in a bunch of speculative 'perhaps' gobbledygook?
Whaa????
Uh, that is what scientists do if they don't know. They speculate, and make it clear they are speculating. They then seek to find evidence for or against each hypothesis.

Why do you find that so odd?

And while we are on the subject, what do you think caused the cause of the Big Bang?

You started out with a 'we don't know'. Yet we somehow, mysteriously, then suddenly have the implied assertion of the existence something called 'a root cause'??
You don't want me to call the root cause of the cause of the universe the root cause? You don't want me to call it the first cause (with or without a mind)? What do you want me to call it?

The root cause I am referring to could be any one of a number of things, including an infinite regression, a loop of causation, self-existent causation, etc. The scientists in the youtube video I referenced discuss their view of the ultimate explanation of the universe.



Then, even worse, you go on and morph this miraculous 'root cause' into a 'first cause' and then associate it with Physics .. all with zero evidence????????!!!
Nothing is morphing here.

You write this in response to:

Regardless of whether the root cause is a distinct something (A) or a circular something (ABC), an infinite regress, or things just happening, let’s call this root cause of any physics the first cause.
We are talking about something far beyond ordinary causation in our universe. I am struggling to put this into words that we in this universe can understand. So I suggest that we could call the root cause of all physics the first cause.

Nothing morphed in that sentence. Certainly not a morph that requires 8 question marks and 3 exclamation points.
 
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

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Wouldn't it be easier just to get a website? Imagine a heavenly Internet feed coming through a wormhole filled with amazing insights. A God who wanted our attention could quickly bring everybodies attention to dwell on his every post. And if there was interactive dialog with the Creator God through that wormhole? Count me in! I know a lot of questions I would ask.

But all that is an evasion from the issue that we are discussing. The universe is filled with evidence that it is very old. And there is an amazing consistency to that evidence. We now know that the universe is 13.72 billion years old. Yes, we know it to an accuracy of 4 decimal points. That is because there is so much consistent evidence, a consensus has built around this number.

And how do you explain all that? We were looking at just one of the evidences, SN 1987A, and you tried a couple of failed explanations. No, SN 1987A did not move 160,000 light years away from us in the last 45 years. No, there is no wormhole between SN 1987A and us. No, God did not miraculous transmit the light from SN 1987A to earth.

And if you repeat such miraculous claims for every evidence out there, how is it that all those miracles align so closely on the age of the universe? If God did it that way, knowing the universe was only 6000 or so years old, he would need to know that this was deceptive.

And so you turn to a different claim, the claim that the stars somehow cryptically tell the story of salvation. Why would a God rely on cryptically arranging stars in the background, when he could simply get an email address?
I'm wondering if I heard you comment before somewhere concerning the notion (at least as I put it) that God, who is the 'inventor' of time, could have done both: As my old Dad said, "Maybe God created Adam 25 years old, that day." —why could not both be true? Does the law of non-contradiction apply to the known fact of relativity, here, or are we applying it here? Are you going to say that relativity wouldn't stretch that far?

I'm not saying this to criticize you or to posit what I believe. I have my own reservations about that notion. But I have as much reason to believe it as I do to believe any other explanation. I would like your input to the matter. Maybe I will learn something.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Sir, we have discussed my webpage on God several times. (Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free) You said you read it. There I made it clear what I meant by a first cause without a mind. You simply ignore it and pretend I never said it. So I copied the pertinent section here. In no sense is the "first cause without a mind" that I refer to supernatural. And yet you simply ignore that, and insist on calling this "first cause without a mind" supernatural or "mere mechanical fact". I have told you multiple times that this is not what I am saying. None of that stops you from making stuff up and pretending I am saying the stuff you make up.

And you wander why people read your stuff and shake their heads in sorrow.
If what you say is true here, I think I must have missed several of your posts. I will back off.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We're done now.
We're done?

But where is this openness to evidence you told us about? You told us that Creationists don't ignore evidence, and you begged me for examples of evidence of an old earth or evolution. I gave you an example, supernova SN 1987A. You first passed it off with a claim that the supernova had moved 160,000 lightyears through space in less than 45 years. Seeing that shot down, you switched to a claim of the light from that distant supernova coming through wormholes or miracles. Seeing that shot down, you switched to a claim that God spelled out the plan of salvation in the stars, as if that had anything to do with what we were discussing. And when you were asked why a God that had wanted to communicate with us chose cryptic messages in the stars rather than a website, we get no answer, you are done?

So, do you still want us to believe that Creationists don't ignore evidence?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm wondering if I heard you comment before somewhere concerning the notion (at least as I put it) that God, who is the 'inventor' of time, could have done both: As my old Dad said, "Maybe God created Adam 25 years old, that day." —why could not both be true?
We were discussing SN 1987A, and why that is evidence that the universe is far older than 6000 years old. I spend a lot of time discussing this supernova at How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free, including explaining how we know the light from that supernova really traveled that many years. You can read it at my website.

Does the law of non-contradiction apply to the known fact of relativity, here, or are we applying it here? Are you going to say that relativity wouldn't stretch that far?
Relativity doesn't help you here. Physical observations and geometry say the supernova was 169,000 lightyears away when the star exploded. And relativity tells us the light can't travel that far through space in 6000 years.
 
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

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,424.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
We're done?

But where is this openness to evidence you told us about? You told us that Creationists don't ignore evidence, and you begged me for examples of evidence of an old earth or evolution. I gave you an example, supernova SN 1987A. You first passed it off with a claim that the supernova had moved 160,000 lightyears through space in less than 45 years. Seeing that shot down, you switched to a claim of the light from that distant supernova coming through wormholes or miracles. Seeing that shot down, you switched to a claim that God spelled out the plan of salvation in the stars, as if that had anything to do with what we were discussing. And when you were asked why a God that had wanted to communicate with us chose cryptic messages in the stars rather than a website, we get no answer, you are done?

So, do you still want us to believe that Creationists don't ignore evidence?
It may not be ignore so much as savage and
unprincipled resort to SEDI, " Same Evidence
Different Interpretation"

The type specimen of this mad method is the following:

At Uni in the USA I was walking across campus with this other girl, and a nice maple leaf fell at our feet.

Oh look she says, a Sign from God! It represrnts the Trinity!

So why, I asked, does it have five parts?

Oh, it's to represent the Pentarch.

THAT is SEDI
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Correct. Nobody knows what ultimately is behind the Big Bang.

But, as I say at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free, we can be quite certain that the universe did come from a Big Bang. The evidence indicates this Big Bang was most likely caused by quantum effects in a vast cosmic inflation.
How the initial state of the universe originated, is an open question .. namely because we don't know.

The LCDM model does constrain some of its characteristics. Several highly speculative models have been proposed, one of which involves quantum fluctuations.
-- End of story.--
doubtingmerle said:
As far as we can tell, once cosmic inflation gets going it is very hard to stop. So once we postulate cosmic inflation, then we are faced with the likelihood of cosmic inflation that grows exponentially ever after, creating untold number of universes.
...
At my webpage, I then go on to ask what caused this cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics. Ultimately there must be some explanation for why that was happening. And yes, nobody really knows. But scientists are probing even that question.
...
And while we are on the subject, what do you think caused the cause of the Big Bang?
Re the underlined bits:

The concept that a cause is fundamentally different from an effect, pretty much doesn't exist in Physics. It's not in any equation, it's not used in any formal sense. Yet as an informal tool, it is used all the time, making it a very bizarre notion. Philosophers have had great fun with it, but, (as usual), it has largely eluded them.

Hume basically said that no one can really say what connects an effect to a cause, yet even small children use the notion effortlessly. One could say it's a bit like the notion of good and evil, which philosophers have also never really figured out, yet gets used all the time.

It just shows how adept we are at manipulating ideas that we really cannot describe at all.
doubtingmerle said:
You don't want me to call the root cause of the cause of the universe the root cause? You don't want me to call it the first cause (with or without a mind)? What do you want me to call it?
A highly speculative, philosophically based word salad(?)

Y'know .. kind of akin to the Hunt for the Holy Grail(?)
doubtingmerle said:
The root cause I am referring to could be any one of a number of things, including an infinite regression, a loop of causation, self-existent causation, etc. The scientists in the youtube video I referenced discuss their view of the ultimate explanation of the universe.
...
Nothing is morphing here.

You write this in response to:

Regardless of whether the root cause is a distinct something (A) or a circular something (ABC), an infinite regress, or things just happening, let’s call this root cause of any physics the first cause.
We are talking about something far beyond ordinary causation in our universe. I am struggling to put this into words that we in this universe can understand. So I suggest that we could call the root cause of all physics the first cause.

Nothing morphed in that sentence. Certainly not a morph that requires 8 question marks and 3 exclamation points.
It's not a clear-cut physical notion that 'A' causes 'B'.
As you indicate, there are many other possibilities, you can have X cause both A and B, but A always comes first, you can have the occurrence of B necessitating that A must have come before, etc.
And you can have situations like, let's say I hold a gun to your head and I decide not to pull the trigger. Have I 'caused' you to not die? Is the rest of your life an effect of my decision not to shoot you? Can I cause an outcome via an action I didn't even take? One person might say yes, another no. But the point is: what test could decide who was right?

You are thus indulging in, (and thereby giving creedence to), a belief-based Hunt for a believed-in 'Holy Grail' principle of universal causality, which even transcends the universe (Metaphysics).
How does that process align with your 'Humanist Manifesto'?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It may not be ignore so much as savage and
unprincipled resort to SEDI, " Same Evidence
Different Interpretation"

The type specimen of this mad method is the following:

At Uni in the USA I was walking across campus with this other girl, and a nice maple leaf fell at our feet.

Oh look she says, a Sign from God! It represrnts the Trinity!

So why, I asked, does it have five parts?

Oh, it's to represent the Pentarch.

THAT is SEDI
(.. 'and testing can just 'take a hike' in the quest for objective meanings for whatever 'the Trinity' or 'the Pentarch' are, as well', eh?)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
How the initial state of the universe originated, is an open question .. namely because we don't know.

The LCDM model does constrain some of its characteristics. Several highly speculative models have been proposed, one of which involves quantum fluctuations.
-- End of story.--
Re the underlined bits:

The concept that a cause is fundamentally different from an effect, pretty much doesn't exist in Physics. It's not in any equation, it's not used in any formal sense. Yet as an informal tool, it is used all the time, making it a very bizarre notion. Philosophers have had great fun with it, but, (as usual), it has largely eluded them.

Hume basically said that no one can really say what connects an effect to a cause, yet even small children use the notion effortlessly. One could say it's a bit like the notion of good and evil, which philosophers have also never really figured out, yet gets used all the time.

It just shows how adept we are at manipulating ideas that we really cannot describe at all.
A highly speculative, philosophically based word salad(?)

Y'know .. kind of akin to the Hunt for the Holy Grail(?)
It's not a clear-cut physical notion that 'A' causes 'B'.
As you indicate, there are many other possibilities, you can have X cause both A and B, but A always comes first, you can have the occurrence of B necessitating that A must have come before, etc.
And you can have situations like, let's say I hold a gun to your head and I decide not to pull the trigger. Have I 'caused' you to not die? Is the rest of your life an effect of my decision not to shoot you? Can I cause an outcome via an action I didn't even take? One person might say yes, another no. But the point is: what test could decide who was right?

You are thus indulging in, (and thereby giving creedence to), a belief-based Hunt for a believed-in 'Holy Grail' principle of universal causality, which even transcends the universe (Metaphysics).
How does that process align with your 'Humanist Manifesto'?

Pretend I am a kid who has gotten stuck into the mode where I constantly ask "why?". If I ask you why the universe exists, I think you would say because there was a Big Bang. Then next I would ask why the Big Bang happened. What would you say?

And I can give you my follow up question already: Whatever your answer, why did that occur?

For me that line of questioning would go something like this:
  • Why the universe? Because there was a Big Bang.
  • Why the Big Bang? Probably because there was cosmic inflation and quantum effects.
  • Why cosmic inflation and quantum effects? I don't know.
  • Why did whatever it is that initiated inflation come into existence? I don't know. If you keep drilling down, ultimately, we come to an explanation at the root of it all. That explanation could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing.

Where does that line of questioning take you?
 
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

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,424.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
(.. 'and testing can just 'take a hike' in the quest for objective meanings for whatever 'the Trinity' or 'the Pentarch' are, as well', eh?)
Depends on whose posts you waste your time reading
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0