|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2006 : 13:38:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Though there are theories and research ongoing, the correct answer is "We don't know yet". And, for the nth time, this does not mean that "god didn't do it".
But the simple truth is the you don't know either, and aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it. You can say "I have faith that god did it", but don't dare submit this as a factual statement because it isn't.
I find it refreshing for someone to honestly answer "I don't know" instead of trying to bullshit an answer.
Though there are theories and research ongoing,
(bill) So share with us some of the best theories put forth by atheism that explain how PM began to exist? How life began to exist? No lame, or unimaginative answers here like, "we don't know" or the others will blow you up as a simpleton. Just entertain us here and give us your best shot....
the correct answer is "We don't know yet".
(bill) So, WHEN the atheist's have figured out how to create vast universes FROM NOTHING, and complex living beings FROM NOTHING, then your materialistic/naturalistic/humanistic worldview might have a leg to try and start standing on.....
And, for the nth time, this does not mean that "god didn't do it".
(bill) So then the atheist, as not knowing all things, must acknowledge that he can not rule out a transcending creative agent to his ideas on how the universe popped into existence? BTW, what were some of these ideas on the origin of PM and life apart from God from the atheism world? Besides "I don't know".....
Certainly after all these years and wise cracks on creationists you have more then "we don't know"? Even if it is just a theory let er rip P....
But the simple truth is the you don't know either, and aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it. You can say "I have faith that god did it", but don't dare submit this as a factual statement because it isn't.
I find it refreshing for someone to honestly answer "I don't know" instead of trying to bullshit an answer
(bill) I give you cause and effect and then the entire universe as evidence for a creator. I explain that logically a transcendent creator falls right into place. I am chided by those on this site as offering a lame, and unimaginative evidence for the creator. When asked for a converse the atheist reply's "we don't know" but the creation position is lame and lacks imagination. You have something to offer in it's place asks the creationists? No, we don't, but were are not going sit by while the creationist presents his case for a creative agent. So you guys have at least a hypothesis on the origin of life and PM to counter the creationist? Yes we counter them with "we have no idea, but we know it ain't' God"...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:05:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Though there are theories and research ongoing, the correct answer is "We don't know yet". And, for the nth time, this does not mean that "god didn't do it".
But the simple truth is the you don't know either, and aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it. You can say "I have faith that god did it", but don't dare submit this as a factual statement because it isn't.
I find it refreshing for someone to honestly answer "I don't know" instead of trying to bullshit an answer.
Exactly.
Bill, you seem so sure of this God thingy that you ought to be able to come up with at least a recent photograph.
Evolution is anything but random. It is the force that adapts species to an ever-changing environment and ecology. Species fail when the process can't keep up with radical change. Thus, there are few megafauna and no dinosaurs left, and more's the pity. In their places, there are smaller mammals and birds. And ourselves.
Evolution of the eye.
So a picture of God is what you will except as evidence for his existance? Of coarse you will trump that with your picture of natural selection in the flesh right?
Any word on the lasted top 5 atheistic explantations to for the origin of life, and physical matter for that fact?
All these years of atheism and laughing at creationist you probably have atheistic origin theories up your shirt sleeve huh? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:10:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) I give you cause and effect and then the entire universe as evidence for a creator. I explain that logically a transcendent creator falls right into place. I am chided by those on this site as offering a lame, and unimaginative evidence for the creator. When asked for a converse the atheist reply's "we don't know" but the creation position is lame and lacks imagination. You have something to offer in it's place asks the creationists? No, we don't, but were are not going sit by while the creationist presents his case for a creative agent. So you guys have at least a hypothesis on the origin of life and PM to counter the creationist? Yes we counter them with "we have no idea, but we know it ain't' God"...
You gave jack shit beyond unsupported blather and uninformed opinion. That sort of thing is no better than a wild guess and in no way resembles science.
Here's a creationist question, a stupid one, but I'll ask it anyway: Were you there when the universe was formed? Did you see it's creation at the hand of God, and did you ask, "What the fuck did you do that for? Of what use could that mess possibly be?"
And by the bye, not all evolutionary scientists are atheists.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Though there are theories and research ongoing, the correct answer is "We don't know yet". And, for the nth time, this does not mean that "god didn't do it".
But the simple truth is the you don't know either, and aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it. You can say "I have faith that god did it", but don't dare submit this as a factual statement because it isn't.
I find it refreshing for someone to honestly answer "I don't know" instead of trying to bullshit an answer.
Exactly.
Bill, you seem so sure of this God thingy that you ought to be able to come up with at least a recent photograph.
Evolution is anything but random. It is the force that adapts species to an ever-changing environment and ecology. Species fail when the process can't keep up with radical change. Thus, there are few megafauna and no dinosaurs left, and more's the pity. In their places, there are smaller mammals and birds. And ourselves.
Evolution of the eye.
So a picture of God is what you will except as evidence for his existance? Of coarse you will trump that with your picture of natural selection in the flesh right?
Any word on the lasted top 5 atheistic explantations to for the origin of life, and physical matter for that fact?
All these years of atheism and laughing at creationist you probably have atheistic origin theories up your shirt sleeve huh?
Didn't open the links, did ya. I wasn't expecting that you would. Creationists seldom do, and I used to wonder why. But over the years I come to the conclusion that they are afraid; afraid to see something that might upset their blinkered viewpoint.
Sure, come up with a photo of God. I'll consider it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:41:23 [Permalink]
|
| Which is more "lame" - saying "research is ongoing, but at this point NOTHING is conclusive, so the honest short answer is I don't know yet" or saying "God (my version of god, other version are wrong) did it, but I can't prove it, and you can't not prove it, so I win"? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
[quote]Originally posted by Bill scott
Moderator: Quoted copyrighted material deleted. See original for link to text.
I find these arguments to be unconvincing. Mostly they seem like arguments from lack of imagination: "I can't imagine how such complicated things came to be", so it must be God. I find that _really_ unconvincing.
(bill) Actually leo, "God did it", is a well thought out and logical position to hold, in light of reality. Through the theory of cause and effect we can conclude that the cause, of the entire physical universe, is a pretty powerful creative agent as the cause of an effect is equal to, or greater then, the effect we see. To realize that the known universe and beyond, at one time did not exist and now it does, just gives us a little snippet to the scope of the power we are talking about here. What could have the ability to bring into existence the entire universe and beyond, which did not exist before?
"God did it" is also very thought out and fits logically when considering the vast display of design we see in our world from all the eco systems to the amazing abilities of vision systems, breathing systems, reproduction systems in all living animals etc... etc... Our world is a complex system living in concert with a complex system, living in concert with a complex system etc... etc... etc...
Creationist: Not only was the infinitely powerful God responsible for bringing universes into existence when universes did not exist before, and bringing life into existence where life did not exist before, but he also is the one who is responsible for the vast array of life that we find...
As far as life being fine-tuned, I dont find it surprising that life that evolved on Earth would be fine-tuned for the conditions on earth. I'd expect it. That it would not exist under different conditions is not surprising.
(bill)Only from an infinite creator would I expect design and fine tuned precision. One who can bring PM and life into existence where it did not exist before. Atheists, in all their glory, have no idea how pm and life can begin to exist? And they subscribe obvious design to blind random chance rather then concede the obvious. They would rather stick their head in the sand and cling to their we don' know, we don't know and blind random chance explanation for the existence of the universe then to even entertain the idea that infinite God could be the first cause. They cling to, and prop up, atheism because that is all they have. The converse is not even an option to consider. If they were to acknowledge a creator, or even the possibility, they realize this would mean that they are subject to the creator. They realize that a created being would be subject to the creative being. In all their humanist glory, this burns them to no end. No way will they be subject to anything. Without a god, they can justify any behavior they want to. With God their might be a standard for everyone on what is right and what is wrong. This concept send chills down the atheist's spin and is why they continue in the search to justify their atheism, at any cost, and the converse is not even an option that can be considered.
Whats the point of M., Rushmore?
(bill) To honor four past presidents...
That humans are good at recognizing things created by humans?
(bill) That humans are good at recognizing things created, period.
OK. I'm not sure what that says about something God would design, or how to recognize it.
(bill) Well we can look at the design of the eye of many different creators and see that God is complex designer. We recognize it because it is here.
The atheist will brush off the fact they have no idea how life, or PM for that matter, arose from nothing. After blowing off the whole origin of PM and life they then will next state it is irrelevant to who and why PM and life got here, we are now here and the array of life can be credited to blind chance, of some kind. They blow off the origin of life and PM but on the topic of diveristy they are emperical experts... *sigh* "Just put down your creation literature because we know for a fact it ain't no god! Now anybody who does not toe the line on our little justso story is a dumbass and to be mocked as a simpleton with unimaginative ideas!"
I appreciate the responce.
(bill) Anytime.
This all seems to boil down to one basic arguement: If you cannot determine the "cause" for any particulat "effect", then it is likely that God was the cause. Especially if the effect was something really big- like the universe or life.
But why should that be? If I look at all all the known effects that have been observed, they almost all have natural and material causes. (And none of the others has a clear supernatural cause.) Even quite complex effects. The formation and structure of thunderstorms is quite complex, but the cause is natural, not supernatural. So why should I not assume the "bigger" causes are natural, too? And isn't supposing that God is the cause a bit of overkill? God must be, what, infinitely more complicated than the universe. In my opinion, a single order of magnitude more complex should be sufficient. In fact, who says that a cause has to be more complex than the effect? I'm not sute thats true. Can't simple processes, when put into effect, have complex results?
I just don't see why the default position should be "God". |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:57:28 [Permalink]
|
I think I'm going to change my definition of theists. Since Bill continues to lump all atheists (and I guess agnostics and evolutionists (whether they believe in god or not)) in to one broad category (kinda like racism, isn't it?), I think I will lump ALL theists into the following group:
"book burnin', hypocritical, murdering "in the name of", mysogonistic, homophobic, racist, delusional, mealy mouth dumb asses"
Will that get us anywhere? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 15:08:45 [Permalink]
|
Actually, little invisible pink elephants (LIEs) as an explanation for the origin of life and PM is just as logical as your (god) explanation. Yet you dismiss it with a handwave. What does that tell you about your own logic?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 15:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
I think I'm going to change my definition of theists. Since Bill continues to lump all atheists (and I guess agnostics and evolutionists (whether they believe in god or not)) in to one broad category (kinda like racism, isn't it?), I think I will lump ALL theists into the following group:
"book burnin', hypocritical, murdering "in the name of", mysogonistic, homophobic, racist, delusional, mealy mouth dumb asses"
Will that get us anywhere?
It gets you on my list! ..... Well, I ain't got a list...... I'll have to start one.... Dammit.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 15:43:19 [Permalink]
|
| Is this a good list or a bad list? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 03:50:23 [Permalink]
|
Beings as how this discussion(?) has wandered far afield from it's topic, like anybody cares, I think I'll drag off it of a little farther.
How many bones are there in the human body? I'd forgotten, so, in no mood to take anybody's word for anything, I looked up a photo in order to count them. But when I finally found a good one, I realized that it would take younger eyes than mine to get it done. Thus, I must appeal for help.
So Bill, my good friend and fellow tetrapod, how many does this refugee from an ambitious medical student have?
Ok, ok, it's a fruit bat skeleton, but, how many bones does it have, and how do they coorespond to our own skeletal layout? And did God get lazy when it invented the Chiroptera? Or perhaps, as the fossil record tells us that bats have been around considerably longer than ourselves, got a bit shiftless with us?
Hey, one good, boneyard picture (worth 1,000 words at least) deserves another:
Here is a series of skulls, most of them quite ancient. Which are human and which are not so human?
Credit for the second photo goes to TalkOrigins -- do visit and learn. I don't remember where I found the first.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 06:06:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Actually, little invisible pink elephants (LIEs) as an explanation for the origin of life and PM is just as logical as your (god) explanation. Yet you dismiss it with a handwave. What does that tell you about your own logic?
Actually, little invisible pink elephants (LIEs) as an explanation for the origin of life and PM is just as logical as your (god) explanation.
(bill) And more logical then "we don't know", "we don't know", and "blind random chance."
Yet you dismiss it with a handwave.
(bill)The atheist will dismiss a creator with a handwave despite the fact that after centuries of thought, and plenty of time to hone their position they have nothing to offer in his place.
Atheist: We have no idea how physical matter and life began to exist where life and PM did not exist before.
Creationist: Then how can you be absolutely sure there is no god when you fully understand cause and effect and you see the physical universe before you?
Atheist: We just can...
Either you have a completely materialistic universe, in which case I am very interested in the first cause of the this humanist universe. Or you have a created universe.
Now since your friends seem to want to dodge the question maybe you can help. I am looking for the current top 3-5 atheistic theories on the origin of life, and physical matter for that fact, on the market today. Certainly after all the centuries to think on such things, with all the time to hone a position there must be many, well imaginative, hypothesis being discussed amongst academia and the all the skeptic forms worldwide. Please share a few...
What does that tell you about your own logic?
(bill)That I base if off of the theory of cause and effect, while you seem to base yours off of Disney World.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 06:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
[quote]Originally posted by Bill scott
Moderator: Quoted copyrighted material deleted. See original for link to text.
I find these arguments to be unconvincing. Mostly they seem like arguments from lack of imagination: "I can't imagine how such complicated things came to be", so it must be God. I find that _really_ unconvincing.
(bill) Actually leo, "God did it", is a well thought out and logical position to hold, in light of reality. Through the theory of cause and effect we can conclude that the cause, of the entire physical universe, is a pretty powerful creative agent as the cause of an effect is equal to, or greater then, the effect we see. To realize that the known universe and beyond, at one time did not exist and now it does, just gives us a little snippet to the scope of the power we are talking about here. What could have the ability to bring into existence the entire universe and beyond, which did not exist before?
"God did it" is also very thought out and fits logically when considering the vast display of design we see in our world from all the eco systems to the amazing abilities of vision systems, breathing systems, reproduction systems in all living animals etc... etc... Our world is a complex system living in concert with a complex system, living in concert with a complex system etc... etc... etc...
Creationist: Not only was the infinitely powerful God responsible for bringing universes into existence when universes did not exist before, and bringing life into existence where life did not exist before, but he also is the one who is responsible for the vast array of life that we find...
As far as life being fine-tuned, I dont find it surprising that life that evolved on Earth would be fine-tuned for the conditions on earth. I'd expect it. That it would not exist under different conditions is not surprising.
(bill)Only from an infinite creator would I expect design and fine tuned precision. One who can bring PM and life into existence where it did not exist before. Atheists, in all their glory, have no idea how pm and life can begin to exist? And they subscribe obvious design to blind random chance rather then concede the obvious. They would rather stick their head in the sand and cling to their we don' know, we don't know and blind random chance explanation for the existence of the universe then to even entertain the idea that infinite God could be the first cause. They cling to, and prop up, atheism because that is all they have. The converse is not even an option to consider. If they were to acknowledge a creator, or even the possibility, they realize this would mean that they are subject to the creator. They realize that a created being would be subject to the creative being. In all their humanist glory, this burns them to no end. No way will they be subject to anything. Without a god, they can justify any behavior they want to. With God their might be a standard for everyone on what is right and what is wrong. This concept send chills down the atheist's spin and is why they continue in the search to justify their atheism, at any cost, and the converse is not even an option that can be considered.
Whats the point of M., Rushmore?
(bill) To honor four past presidents...
That humans are good at recognizing things created by humans?
(bill) That humans are good at recognizing things created, period.
OK. I'm not sure what that says about something God would design, or how to recognize it.
(bill) Well we can look at the design of the eye of many different creators and see that God is complex designer. We recognize it because it is here.
The atheist will brush off the fact they have no idea how life, or PM for that matter, arose from nothing. After blowing off the whole origin of PM and life they then will next state it is irrelevant to who and why PM and life got here, we are now here and the array of life can be credited to blind chance, of some kind. They blow off the origin of life and PM but on the topic of diveristy they are emperical experts... *sigh* "Just put down your creation literature because we know for a fact it ain't no god! Now anybody who does not toe the line on our little justso story is a dumbass and to be mocked as a simpleton with unimaginative ideas!"
I appreciate the responce.
(bill) Anytime.
This all seems to boil down to one basic arguement: If you cannot determine the "cause" for any particulat "effect", then it is likely that God was the cause. Especially if the effect was something really big- like the universe or life.
But why should that be? If I look at all all the known effects that have been observed, they almost all have natural and material causes. (And none of the others has a clear supernatural cause.) Even quite complex effects. The formation and structure of thunderstorms is quite complex, but the cause is natural, not supernatural. So why should I not assume the "bigger" causes are natural, too? And isn't supposing that God is the cause a bit of overkill? God must be, what, infinitely more complicated than the universe. In my opinion, a single order of magnitude more complex should be sufficient. In fact, who says that a cause has to be more complex than the effect? I'm not sute thats true. Can't simple processes, when put into effect, have complex results?
I just don't see why the default position should be "God".
bill) Fair enough, and I will be glad to address your second post as well, but first I would like to learn a little about you. If you dismiss the evidence I have put forth, so far, for a infinite creator as lame, and unimaginative, then I can only assume that you have some very imaginative theories, hypothesis, or even some justso stories on the origin of life, and physical matter for that fact, in a existence apart from any creator that you would not mind sharing. A completely materialistic universe... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 06:09:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Which is more "lame" - saying "research is ongoing, but at this point NOTHING is conclusive, so the honest short answer is I don't know yet" or saying "God (my version of god, other version are wrong) did it, but I can't prove it, and you can't not prove it, so I win"?
Which is more "lame" - saying "research is ongoing, but at this point NOTHING is conclusive, so the honest short answer is I don't know yet"
(bill) "nothing is conclusive yet" Hmm.... So they are close to something being conclusive? You speak as if there are many ongoing studies as we speak. If so you must share them as I am very interested in atheist's origins theory.
Your top 3 atheist theory's on origins of life and PM please.
or saying "God (my version of god, other version are wrong) did it, but I can't prove it, and you can't not prove it, so I win"?
(bill) Win? This is not a contest for me. I seek to pursue and to know truth. What better way to test what you believe to be truth then to openly discuss it with those who don't?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 06:11:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) I give you cause and effect and then the entire universe as evidence for a creator. I explain that logically a transcendent creator falls right into place. I am chided by those on this site as offering a lame, and unimaginative evidence for the creator. When asked for a converse the atheist reply's "we don't know" but the creation position is lame and lacks imagination. You have something to offer in it's place asks the creationists? No, we don't, but were are not going sit by while the creationist presents his case for a creative agent. So you guys have at least a hypothesis on the origin of life and PM to counter the creationist? Yes we counter them with "we have no idea, but we know it ain't' God"...
You gave jack shit beyond unsupported blather and uninformed opinion. That sort of thing is no better than a wild guess and in no way resembles science.
Here's a creationist question, a stupid one, but I'll ask it anyway: Were you there when the universe was formed? Did you see it's creation at the hand of God, and did you ask, "What the fuck did you do that for? Of what use could that mess possibly be?"
And by the bye, not all evolutionary scientists are atheists.
And by the bye, not all evolutionary scientists are atheists.
(bill) But you are an atheist, you said so, so I am asking you... Can you please give me one of the top atheistic theories on the origins of physical matter and the origins of life in a completely materialistic universe?
After centuries of thought and much time to hone their position I am expecting atheistic theory to come strong here. Remember, no lame, or unimaginative justso stories will cut the mustard on this forum so you better bring your A game...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
