Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-02-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. I can be a proponent of intelligent design and still believe in evolution as a process that was orchestrated by God.

So, again, you're working with a completely different definition of a term.

In future, you may want to make this clear early on in the discussion. It causes needless confusion.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, go over it again.

Again, do not attempt to fisk me if you do not know how it works. Demanding that I go over something again when I do that in the very next line is exceptionally pointless and only serves to make you look silly.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Leibniz's version just merely states that every entity that exists either exists based on the necessity of its own nature, or by an external cause.

And the latter option relies on an incoherent non-definition of "cause", natch.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now on the surface, those are really the only two options we have for things that exist. Unless you can give me another option (besides the whole "popping out of nothing" nonsense).

Dismissing the idea of existence without cause out of hand does not make it any less of a valid possibility. In fact, it would seem to be the only possibility, given the above issue with causality outside of time - but even granting that this is not the case, there is no reason to assume that this cannot happen. In fact, the cosmological argument itself not only says that it can happen, but that it must in the case of its posited god.

Which is where it gets into special pleading, but that is rather beside the point for the moment.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We know that the universe cannot exist based on the necessity of its own nature

No, we don't.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Doesn't matter whether inside, or outside of the universe. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, period.

Bare assertion.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No they don't. The kalam cosmological argument deals with this DIRECTLY by saying that a first cause is necessary because of the problems regarding infinite regress.

Which ignores the possibility of no cause, and becomes special pleading when it states that this hypothetical god does not itself require a cause.

I addressed literally every one of your points before you even made them. Please read my posts before responding.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I said "thoughts aren't physical". That is my point.

And you were wrong. That is my point.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am thinking of an apple right now...so until you can tell me how much does this thought weigh, how long it is, how deep it is, what does it smell like, and what color it is...until you can answer any of those questions, then just concede the point; thoughts aren't physical.

Category error.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, no it isn't just an assertion.

Yes, it is.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The proposition "The existence of God is possible"; that proposition, of course, is either true or false. Either God's existence is possible, or it isn't possible. No gray area.

Which does not make it any less an assertion. I do not think that you understand what that word actually means.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Since we are dealing with the nature of necessity, it just so happens that if God's existence is even POSSIBLE, then it follows that God must exist

No, it doesn't. See my previous post. Literally everything you say has already been addressed.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Just stick to the Modal version of the argument, sparky.

I am addressing the modal formulation. Or, rather, modal formulations. As I said, it gets rephrased a lot due to its incoherence lending itself to that kind of thing.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The argument doesn't say anything about the moral capacity of atheists. Educate yourself on the argument, then get back with me.

I reiterate: the premise is incoherent and false, and the conclusion does not follow.

There is no further education necessary.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

Then present it.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And we have historical evidence that Jesus' followers believed that they saw him following his death and burial.

Belief is not equivalent to truth.

I also note the lack of any explanation for the "argument from entropy".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-02-2016, 07:06 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So, again, you're working with a completely different definition of a term.

In future, you may want to make this clear early on in the discussion. It causes needless confusion.

Nonsense. Intelligent design only means that God was behind the ordeal. Now, what mechanism he used to do it is up to him. But the bottom line is, God did it.

That is what intelligent design is, in a nut shell. No over-analyzing necessary.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Again, do not attempt to fisk me if you do not know how it works. Demanding that I go over something again when I do that in the very next line is exceptionally pointless and only serves to make you look silly.

Oh, let me rephrase that. I meant; Go over it better.

Big Grin

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And the latter option relies on an incoherent non-definition of "cause", natch.

Incoherent? "Cause" in this case means "it is because of x that y happened".

Seems coherent to me. *shrugs*

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Dismissing the idea of existence without cause out of hand does not make it any less of a valid possibility.

So, basically "dismissing the idea that something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing does not make it any less valid of a possibility".

That is basically what you are saying. So again, the idea seems to be "anything, no matter how absurd, is better than the God Hypothesis".

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In fact, it would seem to be the only possibility, given the above issue with causality outside of time - but even granting that this is not the case, there is no reason to assume that this cannot happen.

So lets just cut the bullshit and get right to it. I will ask you direct, simple, yes or no question...and I expect the same kind of answer.

Are you saying it is possible for the universe to have pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing? Yes or no.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In fact, the cosmological argument itself not only says that it can happen

Um, what cosmology?

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  , but that it must in the case of its posited god.

Makes no sense.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is where it gets into special pleading, but that is rather beside the point for the moment.

Nonsensical premises only leads to nonsensical conclusions.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, we don't.

Before I address this, I need an answer to the yes/no question above.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which ignores the possibility of no cause, and becomes special pleading when it states that this hypothetical god does not itself require a cause.

I addressed literally every one of your points before you even made them. Please read my posts before responding.

Dude, you haven't addressed a damn thing. As of this moment in my response to you, we are now talking about the problem with infinite regress...and my claim is that a First Cause is absolutely, positively necessary.

Now what I said was; infinity cannot be possessed, and it can also NOT be traversed.

Do you agree that infinity cannot be possessed, and that it can't be traversed?

Yes or no? (another simple question).

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And you were wrong. That is my point.

Laugh out load

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Category error.

Nonsense. I said that thoughts aren't physical. You've offered no objection to that other than to say that I am wrong. If thoughts are physical, then they would be able to be touched, smelled, weighted, measured, colored, or anything else you can do with physical objects. Guess what, they can be neither. They fail at all of the above.

So what I said stands: thoughts aren't physical. Of course, you have more than enough opportunity to explain or demonstrate how/why thoughts ARE physical..and if you can do so, then I will retract my statement.

But I predict that there won't be any retracting. Prove me wrong, sir.

(29-02-2016 01:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, no it isn't just an assertion.

Yes, it is.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which does not make it any less an assertion. I do not think that you understand what that word actually means.

Obviously when I said it isn't just an assertion, I was responding to you implying that the statement that I made regarding the argument was just an assertion..in other words, an EMPTY statement.

And I implied that it wasn't just an assertion, but an assertion with more than enough meat on its bones to get the job done.

Cmon now, Spartacus...you are being very dismissive here Consider

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it doesn't. See my previous post. Literally everything you say has already been addressed.

Um, I saw your previous post and I don't see any legitimate refutation of any of the arguments.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I am addressing the modal formulation. Or, rather, modal formulations. As I said, it gets rephrased a lot due to its incoherence lending itself to that kind of thing.

I am talking about Plantiga's version.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I reiterate: the premise is incoherent and false, and the conclusion does not follow.

There is no further education necessary.

SMH this guy is dying a painful and agonizing death.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then present it.

I'm lazy. I would rather you research it and THEN we can talk about it.

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Belief is not equivalent to truth.

If they believed it, then they weren't lying, were they?

(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I also note the lack of any explanation for the "argument from entropy".

It is basically an offshoot of the argument from design. From the moment of the big bang, we know that the entropy was low....very low. Well, we also know that such a chaotic expansion without an intelligent orchestrator the entropy would have been HIGH...very HIGH.

And then we get into the actual cosmological constants, which are all fine-tuned to mathematical precision...if any of the constants were off by the tinest degree, it would have created an unbalance that would have been life prohibiting.

Not only that, but it isn't as if the universe had an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of "time" to get it right. There was only ONE shot, and with that ONE shot, we have EVERYTHING. There was no infinite trial and error process..only one try...and it got done.

You don't get that kind of entropy from mindless and blind processes on just one try (actually, you won't get that kind of low entropy for ANY amount of tries, for that matter...but much more less one try).

This is a problem for naturalists who believe that things happened...naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Intelligent design only means that God was behind the ordeal.

Not in the common usage, no.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And the latter option relies on an incoherent non-definition of "cause", natch.

Incoherent? "Cause" in this case means "it is because of x that y happened".

I have also gone over this before. Please pay attention.

This definition of causation - that is, the only one that actually has any meaning - only holds true within the framework of time. If there is no time - that is, in any situation which the cosmological argument purports to deal with - then it cannot be used. Attempting to do so, as the cosmological argument does, renders it incoherent and meaningless.

That it can be formulated at all is only because language is very easily abused.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Are you saying it is possible for the universe to have pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing? Yes or no.

"Pop into existence" is a rather disingenuous term, as, once again, there was no point in time at which there was no universe. But, all the same, the answer is essentially yes.

Or, at least, that there is no reason to believe that it could not and/or did not.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, you haven't addressed a damn thing. As of this moment in my response to you, we are now talking about the problem with infinite regress...and my claim is that a First Cause is absolutely, positively necessary.

And my point is that this idea is incoherent, bare assertion, and special pleading.

Try to keep up.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Category error.

Nonsense. I said that thoughts aren't physical. You've offered no objection to that other than to say that I am wrong.

Yes, I have. I have pointed out that thoughts are demonstrably - that is, provably and known to be - neurochemical reactions within the brain. The entire field of cognitive neuroscience is based on this.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If thoughts are physical, then they would be able to be touched, smelled, weighted, measured, colored, or anything else you can do with physical objects. Guess what, they can be neither. They fail at all of the above.

What is the weight of an electrical impulse? What does a computer program smell like?

This is not me attempting to be clever or disingenuous. This is just me pointing out that you are committing a very simple category error. Thoughts are demonstrably neurochemical reactions, but asking what they weigh is rather pointless. It might technically be possible to come up with a figure if you were willing to total all of the energy involved in any given brain state, but doing so would be as pointless as trying to determine what sound sunlight makes.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Obviously when I said it isn't just an assertion, I was responding to you implying that the statement that I made regarding the argument was just an assertion..in other words, an EMPTY statement.

That is not what "assertion" means. An assertion is any statement posited as true in a given argument. In order for the argument to be considered sound, its premises must be demonstrated as true. The modal cosmological argument posits that God's existence is possible. It does not demonstrate that this is actually true.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I reiterate: the premise is incoherent and false, and the conclusion does not follow.

SMH this guy is dying a painful and agonizing death.

And yet you have no response. Telling, that.

Trying to dodge the issue with petty insults only serves to make you look like a transparently disingenuous fool.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 05:13 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then present it.

I'm lazy. I would rather you research it and THEN we can talk about it.

It's your argument. Defending it is your job.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If they believed it, then they weren't lying, were they?

"Not lying" is also not equal to truth.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, we also know that such a chaotic expansion without an intelligent orchestrator the entropy would have been HIGH...very HIGH.

No, we don't.

(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And then we get into the actual cosmological constants, which are all fine-tuned to mathematical precision...if any of the constants were off by the tinest degree, it would have created an unbalance that would have been life prohibiting.

Bare assertion, Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The thing about arguments, Call, is that you don't get to just present one and expect it to be taken at face value. You cannot just present a list of premises and then act as if they are axiomatically true. You must demonstrate them to be so.

Thus far, you have utterly failed in this regard.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-02-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 07:06 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Intelligent design only means that God was behind the ordeal. Now, what mechanism he used to do it is up to him. But the bottom line is, God did it.

It was an "ordeal" for your idiot god to intelligently design something Facepalm
LOL

The fact is, the universe, especially terrestrial life forms, have a very unintelligent design. SO there's that inconvenient truth for you to chew on.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2016, 02:04 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Quote:every entity that exists either exists based on the necessity of its own nature, or by an external cause

Entities (and everything else) exist because they are (demonstrably) real, not because they are "necessary".

Has anyone ever seen anybody say: "My neighbour exists because he is necessary"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2016, 05:09 AM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2016 02:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
He says his god is "necessary". When asked to explain how a (supposed) creator of Reality found itself to be *subject* to it he ran out of bullshit, and had no answer, but said his god did not "create reality". Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2016, 07:44 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
I find it amazing that creationists still use the same basic argument that is the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming 'god did it' over and over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ohio_drg's post
02-03-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
[Image: Brain-Anatomy-Function.jpg]

Tell us again how "thoughts are immaterial" ? See the top right image, where EACH area is related to one category. You get what that means, Wail of the Child ?

Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-03-2016, 04:24 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Not in the common usage, no.

Empty statement.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have also gone over this before. Please pay attention.

This definition of causation - that is, the only one that actually has any meaning - only holds true within the framework of time. If there is no time - that is, in any situation which the cosmological argument purports to deal with - then it cannot be used. Attempting to do so, as the cosmological argument does, renders it incoherent and meaningless.

That it can be formulated at all is only because language is very easily abused.

I've already explained that God's creation of the universe was in time....remember, the whole simultaneous thing? That was a DIRECT response to your "everything happens in time" spewage....and so far I haven't seen any counter-objection from you in regards to that.

So at this point, you are just attacking straw man.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Pop into existence" is a rather disingenuous term

"Hello Semantics, how are you doing? Nice to meet ya" Thumbsup

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  , as, once again, there was no point in time at which there was no universe. But, all the same, the answer is essentially yes.

"There was no point in time at which there was no universe, but the universe definitiely popped in to being from a state of non-existence".

Makes no sense.

Or, at least, that there is no reason to believe that it could not and/or did not.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And my point is that this idea is incoherent, bare assertion, and special pleading.

Try to keep up.

SMH. It is bad enough that you are lying to me...but to lie to yourself...that is just a crying shame.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, I have. I have pointed out that thoughts are demonstrably - that is, provably and known to be - neurochemical reactions within the brain.
The entire field of cognitive neuroscience is based on this.

Ok, so brain is made up of matter, right (keep the cartilage jokes to yourself) Big Grin , so take any neuroscientist of your choice, retrieve all of the brain matter you like...go in a lab...shape, mold, form a human brain...and tell me when you will get thoughts, feelings, emotions, memory, sensations, etc...let me know when you will get all of those things inside of the brain.

Not to say that you can do this, but EVEN if you were able to someone create a human brain from scratch, please tell me at where would you get the consciousness from?

Lets say you had all of the brain matter in the world at your disposal, and you even had all of the neurochemicals in the world at your disposal...so take the brain matter, and neurochemicals...and create a funtional human brain...consciousness and everything. Not only that, but I want you to take the brain matter and neurochemicals and get the brain to think of an apple.

Since "thoughts are from neurochemical reactions in the brain", how would you take all of that "stuff" and make the brain think of an apple.

Can you do that for me? Because after all, this is YOUR theory, not mines. If neurochemicals is your answer for consciousness, then I'd like a scientific explanation for the origin of consciousness. Not the brain, but consciousness.

Not only that, but you have yet another problem; a chicken & egg problem. What came first, the brain, or consicousness? If consciousness came first, then you admit that consciousness exists independently of the brain...if the brain came first, then you have to scientifically explain what is the natural process from unconsciousness, to consciousness. What is the spark?

Either way, you've got problems.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What is the weight of an electrical impulse? What does a computer program smell like?

The electrons that make up electricity has mass...it is a physical construct explained by natural law...and a computer program is information, and no, information isn't physical...but then again, computer programs are created by intelligent designers, so I don't see how bringing that up helps your case.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not me attempting to be clever or disingenuous. This is just me pointing out that you are committing a very simple category error. Thoughts are demonstrably neurochemical reactions, but asking what they weigh is rather pointless.

First off, I asked what they weighed to demonstrate the fact that they aren't physical, which they aren't. You keep on bringing up neurochemicals, but neurochemicals aren't thoughts. Thoughts are images...if you are thinking of an apple, you have the image of an apple in your brain...how in the hell can mere chemicals create an image of a discrete physical object that is completely and wholly independent of the chemical itself?

How can a physical entity be about another physical entity? Makes no sense under the naturalistic umbrella.

Not only that, but all of that is independent from the problem of origins; in other words, where did the thoughts come from in the first place? Oh snaps, I already mentioned the chicken & egg problem Big Grin

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It might technically be possible to come up with a figure if you were willing to total all of the energy involved in any given brain state, but doing so would be as pointless as trying to determine what sound sunlight makes.

Nonsense. The energy that is used to think of the thought is independent from the thought itself. The question was "how much do thoughts weigh"
. And no answer can be given to such a question.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is not what "assertion" means. An assertion is any statement posited as true in a given argument. In order for the argument to be considered sound, its premises must be demonstrated as true. The modal cosmological argument posits that God's existence is possible. It does not demonstrate that this is actually true.

"The modal ontological argument"*

The entire quote above is false, because as I've stated, a possible necessary truth must be actually true. I don't know whether you ignored that point on purpose or whether you just happen to miss it...either way, it was addressed.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's your argument. Defending it is your job.

I baited you into a discussion on it. Take the bait.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Not lying" is also not equal to truth.

If they believe it, then they weren't lying. And if they weren't lying because they believed it, then they had reasons to believe it.

The question then becomes "why did they believe it". Consider

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, we don't.

Nonsense. That is like saying we don't know whether the entropy is high or low if we took a deck of cards, shuffled them, and through them into the air and watched each card fall on the floor. The entropy would be high, no one can deny this and be intellectually honest at the same time.

No one can deny that, yet when it comes to a cosmic big bang, where all space, time, matter, and energy burst into existence from a singularity point...oh, "we don't know" what the entropy was like.

Taxi cab fallacy, bruh.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Bare assertion, Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

No, real mathematical facts. Our universe is mathematically engineered for human life. But don't just take my word for it.

*Cough* Roger Penrose.

(29-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The thing about arguments, Call, is that you don't get to just present one and expect it to be taken at face value. You cannot just present a list of premises and then act as if they are axiomatically true. You must demonstrate them to be so.

Thus far, you have utterly failed in this regard.

I can do all of that...but I like the pace we have. Small steps, not leaps and bounds Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I can do all of that...but I like the pace we have. Small steps, not leaps and bounds Laugh out load

That's the way evolution works, too.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: