04-22-2004, 03:13 PM | #981 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Yes, the subject came up again while we were talking over your ideas on that thread, because the idea of a creator came up.
Also on that thread, I asked GrayMouser if he had seen my analysis of his objection to the incorrect dating of the Mt. St. Helens rock, and that should be on this thread, too. Instead of posting a link, I think I'll just move the whole post over here, since it's easier than going to a link. The original point that I brought up was that a scientist had taken a rock with a known age and sent it to a dating lab, and the lab said the rock was from between 250,000 and 1 million years old. The rock was actually 16 years old (it came from the Mt. St. Helens eruption.) We talked a bit, then it came to this part. First I quoted GrayMouser, then I answered his question. Quote:
There is one (at least) difference here, GM - and it's a HUGE one - your weight CAN be measured accurately. The correct procedure would be to find a small enough scale range so that you will "top out", then go up one range until you find one that you are somewhere at the middle. That will be your weight. You can also cross-verify it several ways that are ALSO not dependant upon an INITIAL ESTIMATE being correct. There IS a scientific way to find out your weight - and the correct procedure is NOT to stand on a truck scale, and the correct answer, given the correct procedure, does NOT depend upon a correct estimate. I"m a terrible estimator - say that I look at you and say I think you're 250 pounds. Then if we follow the correct procedure, we will find out your real weight, and it doesn't matter if my initial estimate was right or not! All it means is that I would use a few more scales until I found one that you "topped out" with. It will have NO influence on the final answer. However, the standard procedure for dating rocks DOES utterly and completely depend upon an initially correct estimate, which may very well be WRONG. This was clearly shown in the Mt. St. Helens rock case. Do you still have no problem with this? Not in the least? GM, you've always seemed intellectually honest. Can you honestly say that you still have no intellectual problem with this dependence upon an initial estimate being correct?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
04-22-2004, 03:20 PM | #982 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Here's where I originally brought the point up: here.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
04-23-2004, 11:12 AM | #983 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
in another thread i brought up the following:
the practice of science involves formulating theories about what may or may not be the true state of things... one of the foundations of science is that anything which is not a fact, but just a theory, must always remain in question... even if the theory is a very widely accepted one it's been said that creationism is just as much a scientific theory as evolutionism is the reason this is not true, i said, is that true scientists are willing to question the very foundation of evolutionism (i.e. it may be completely wrong... and if a better theory comes along... evolutionism will be modified or tossed out) creationism, on the other hand, is unwilling to question the existance of god, which is admittedly just a theory (i.e. it can not be proven)... so creationism is not a science, just a belief then it was said that evolutionism is just a belief too, because many scientists treat it as a fact fair enough, i would call them pseudo-scientists, and to them, evolutionism is a belief but the fact remains, that there are true evolutionary scientists who are willing to question each and every part of their theories my ***YES/NO*** question... are there any true creationist scientists who are willing to completely question their theories... the existance of god, for instance?
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
04-23-2004, 12:28 PM | #984 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Brownie asked for my opinion on this, so here it is ...
Brownie, first of all I hope you know me well enough by now to believe me when I say that my interest is in communication and understanding, and when I can't answer what you think is a yes/no question with a yes or a no, it's because I think that it would be a disservice to communication and to both of us to answer it that way. IOW, I trust that when you ask me a question, that you're TRULY interested in my answer, and you're not just trying to "score" a point in a debate by "forcing" a yes/no answer. I'm not into those games, and I don't think you are, either (altho I DO think that there are many questions which ARE proper yes/no questions, and hopefully we can agree on a reworked form of your question which is a proper yes/no question in both of our opinions). And because of some underlying assumptions that I think you've made that IMO are incorrect, I really think that your particular question is NOT a proper yes/no question. I'll try to explain now - let me know how I do! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And to me, this is FINE on BOTH sides - both have unproven (and unproveable) foundational beliefs, and both should be willing to drop ANY (I repeat - ANY) aspect of the differing parts of the theories that were based on these foundational beliefs and re-formulate them if they are disproven. They should be willing to toss EVERYHING and go all the way back to the bare-bones of their assumption, if the different elements are proved wrong, and start over. But it's their choice to stick with whatever bare-bones assumption they truly think is right - either God or naturalistic forces. For example, evolutionists dropped gradualism as the MAIN source of macroevolution, because it was NOT supported strongly in the fossil record, and replaced it with punctuated equilibrium. And this is fine and good and right. Just because gradualism was dropped is NOT a compelling reason to drop their basic bare-bones assumption of naturalism, if they really still think it's right. If they really think that there is NO superior being behind things, then I don't blame them for not dropping that assumption. As long as they're willing to drop the parts that don't match up with the data, let them reformulate as much as they want to. And creationists act the same way. I can't really address the rest of your post until this area is cleared up, so I'll wait for your reply
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|||
04-23-2004, 12:52 PM | #985 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Compare the half-life of Uranium and the variation of GM's weight on the truck scale and compare the deviation as a percentage of the possible range of the two scales. Not much different. If the precision of the Ur test is say +/- 1 My then a sample that tests 10 MY is really 9-11 My. A sample that tests 1 My is 0-2 My. The accuracy is acceptable for older samples but the precision obscures the accuracy at low valuews.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
04-23-2004, 01:55 PM | #986 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
I disagree. The defective area is that the dating is based on a subjective estimate as to the age of the rock, and this estimate COULD BE WRONG. You are not addressing what is the important point - that the answer given by the lab is ENTIRELY dependent upon the initial GUESS/ESTIMATE being correct. And this initial guess is subjective, based upon things like index fossils. If a scientist sees a rock like the Mt. St. Helens rock (which is 16 years old) and sincerely thinks it is about 1.5 M years old, based on a subjective estimate, and sends it to this lab, HIS ERRONEOUS ESTIMATE WILL BE "CONFIRMED", and a 16-year-old rock will be wrongly thought to have a confirmed age of 250,000 to 1M years old. This is a serious problem, IMO. And if a scientist can show that there is a serious underlying error in the rock-dating procedure, then everyone should be cheering him - after all, science is a search for truth. And if the truth is that it can be SHOWN that a rock with a known age can be erroneously dated, then people should be grateful to find this out, and should strive to fix the problem - they should NOT be trying to cover their, um, position on the subject.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 04-23-2004 at 02:05 PM. |
|
04-23-2004, 02:01 PM | #987 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
the key here is flexibility... are you willing to at least consider every possibility? these are all possibilities... no assumption is set in stone... a flexibility that does not exist in creationism and without flexibility, one can never approach objectivity when observing results
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
04-23-2004, 04:10 PM | #988 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
The evolutionists have chosen to set up a foundation that things came about by wholly natural (i.e., unguided by intelligence) causes. God bless 'em, if that's what they think is right, then go for it! Start forming your predictions, see if they're true, adjust as necessary. Darwin gets his pigeons together and notices that there are changes in the population; he thinks "now how can what I observe fit into my idea?" and comes up with the, um, (*R*an mightily restrains herself* ) interesting idea that because we see small changes over time, perhaps there could be HUGE changes, of a different type, over a HUGE amount of time, such that a man could eventually result from a single-celled thingy. He breeds more pigeons and looks at breeding all around him and concludes that there just isn't enough time to actually see this happen, but it might happen. And this conclusion is not without foundation, but it isn't proven, either. He also concludes that when we find more fossils, it might show up in the fossil record. Now the creationists have chosen to set up a foundation that things came about by intent and design and as outlined in the Bible and are also operated on by natural laws set up by design. Ditto - God bless 'em, if that's what they think is right, then go for it! Start forming your predictions, .... etc. Creationists get animals together and notice that there are changes in the population, they think "can we negate our prediction that an animal is actually constrained to remain this animal, no matter what?" and they test and work with genetic info and see that yes, changes do happen, but every time, the changes lead to less adaptability in the species, and less viability, and a greater tendency to illness, etc., and conclude that there are some natural laws that keeps a species true to its kind, and start investigating the natural laws. (and "species" isn't a scientific measurement, btw, such as weight and mass and things like that. It's a description that has some general guidelines, and scientists disagree as to the details in many cases.) These are just simplistic examples, but again, one theory is based on that things come about by naturalistic means, and another that there is intent and design by God. You can finagle it all you want, but as far as the evolution theory, they would have to answer "No" to the question "Do things come about by the intent and design of God as outlined in the Bible in such a way that it is evident?" So altho God is not explicitly named in the theory, the direct logical deduction one makes from the theory is that God is NOT the cause of how we got here today, unless it's in a disguised form, which is really not saying anything.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 04-23-2004 at 04:12 PM. |
|
04-23-2004, 04:24 PM | #989 | ||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
And really, IMO, both are (for lack of a better term) "bastard" forms of science, anyway. Science is "let's explore things and find out how things work, by forming predictions and using repeatable, measureable and observable experiments to check the predictions!" OTOH, both creationism and evolutionism are "I wonder how we got here - what a fascinating question! - well, we can't know for sure, because we can't observe and test the past, but we can form ideas and look at things in the present and at least SOME of the things are testable and we'll just have to do the best we can with whatever data we can get." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Brownie, do you see at all what I'm trying to say? I wish I could express it better.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 04-23-2004 at 04:26 PM. |
||||
04-23-2004, 04:28 PM | #990 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
1. They are finches occuring naturally on the Galapagos islands, but with important differences between each other. 2. Darwin did not breed the finches, he observed them in their natural habitat. 3. Darwin constructed a microevolution theory largely based on his findings, but made no inferences about macroevolution, or the fossil record. The finches were the same species, but isolated populations developped different types of beaks based on the food they ate. That's why Darwin studied them, and predicted that they would become their own species over time. When Darwin brought examples back to England, before he developped his theories, the birds were classified as different species by different scientists. This is microevolution. Darwin is not the only scientist contributing to macroevolution theories. Macroevolution started to take shape when Mendelevium genetics theories and Darwinism were merged in the early 1900s. Other scientists contributed later. I completely acknowledge that Creationism and Evolutionism are valid theories with similar basic design. (We get it! ) The point I'm really going for is Evolutionists are not silly scientists who are set in their ways. There are some, but those few and loud do not invalidate Evolutionism as a whole. Also, as Brownie pointed out, Evolutionism exists independently of believing in God. IOW, whether or not a scientist believes in God does not affect his views on Evolutionism. (Unless it changes his worldview, but that's something else. The theory of Evolutionism itself is not altered by the presence or lack of God.)
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 04-23-2004 at 04:31 PM. |
|||
04-23-2004, 04:34 PM | #991 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
are there any theorists who compare the different kinds of creationist theories out there with one another (i.e. hindu, biblical, diestic)?
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
04-23-2004, 04:38 PM | #992 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||
04-24-2004, 02:24 AM | #993 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
*bump*
(just making sure the people whose posts I answered see my responses to them)
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
04-24-2004, 11:16 AM | #994 |
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
first time in this thread
couple things: on one of the first pages, someone said evolutionism is a religion not a science. I encourage that person to buy a dictionary, and look up the meanings of the folowing words; evolution, creationism, religion, science. They also said you cannot witness evolution, I beg to differ. Let's take it back a few steps, lets say Mr + Mrs A Have a Child. Mr A has black hair, Mrs A has Brown Hair, there is a 50% probability that child A will have black or brown hair. Mr and Mrs B have a child, Those parents have both black hair, it is most likely the child will be black haired. now, the two children grow up and have a child, it is 75% likely that grandchild will be black-haired. This is micro evolution on the sense that Black hairs prevail. Now, if evolution is wrong, please tell me how we developed, how do we have homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithices, and so on, further and further back in time. As each species developes, and passes certain traits on, the beneficial traits help the species to continue, and those with detrimental traits are preyed upon by predators. i.e; an animal lives in a grassy area, there are two varieties, brown, and green. eventually, brown ones are preyed upon, and die off. ipso facto: genus=animal, species =animal brown (extinct), and animal green (evolved, new species) I hope i have proved my point |
04-24-2004, 05:00 PM | #995 | ||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you're interested in the top-level summary of creationism that i wrote, then go to the first post in this thread, and go to the link at the bottom of the first post
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 04-24-2004 at 05:02 PM. |
||||
04-24-2004, 05:27 PM | #996 | ||||
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
my point with animal green/animal brown was that they were descended from one animal, that animal had genetic mutations, resulting in two colours. one colour is not adapted to survive, next permeatation of animal, all are one colour again, but have noticed differences in genetic makeup, therefore, you have a new species, ipso facto: evolution has occurred Quote:
as i say, first time in this thread, but i am an accomplished biologist, palaeontologist, palaeobiologist and archaeologist but i have a lesser knowledge of geology |
||||
04-25-2004, 01:29 AM | #997 | ||
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords Last edited by BeardofPants : 04-25-2004 at 01:32 AM. |
||
04-25-2004, 09:13 AM | #998 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
As for the Mt.St. Helen's rock- what everybody else already said- it's a question of the margin of error within the overall magnitude of what you're checking.
About the circularity of radioactive dating, Cirdan and BoP have already explained - more than once- in far greater depth than I am capable of, how that is simply not the case. I would just like to point out that the most serious attempt to explain -explain away?- radiometric dating has been mounted by a group known as RATE Quote:
So what they're saying is that yes, radiometric dating is actually measuring something, and that the relative scale as established by the use of different elements is basically accurate. All they have to do now is completely rewrite modern physics. Or.... Quote:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/miracle_henke.htm This is science-NOT. of
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
||
04-26-2004, 11:48 AM | #999 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
And I repeat that if the initial estimate is incorrect, the age will very likely be incorrect. I've mightily restrained myself in this discussion, but I must say, at this point, that you seem quite unscientifically vested in evolutionism, or at least in this particular area. And I can well understand that - any small chink in classic evolutionism increases the chances that there might be a God as described in the Bible - which means that you are dealing with eternity, and that you are accountable for your actions. Evolutionism is just so darn comfortable - no moral accountability, and things just rot away in the end. Eternity and accountability are terribly uncomfortable facts that we'll do just about anything to explain away. EDIT - I used some poor wording in this paragraph; let me try to rephrase it before someone else misunderstands me When I said "increases the chances", I meant the perceived probability in a person's mind- not, of course, the actual chance that God exists. God either DOES exists or does NOT exist, and it has nothing to do with chance. But IMO, a person who sees some of the problems in evolutionism is more likely to be open-minded when considering the evidences for the existence of God. A person who thinks classical evolutionism is absolutely proven (which is impossible, given the fact that it's about something that's in the past) will naturally be more close-minded about considering evidence for the existence of God. Evolution standing or falling upon evidence has NOTHING to do with PROVING God exists. However, IMO it DOES have something to do with how open-minded a person will be when considering the question "does God exist?". That's what I meant - I hope this explained it better. end EDIT As for the rest of your post, I'm digging up some quotes from the Bible of Evolutionism , TalkOrigins.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 04-26-2004 at 01:52 PM. |
||
04-26-2004, 01:03 PM | #1000 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
you can try to disprove geological evidence all you like, but it does nothing to increase the chances that their is a god
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|