|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2004 : 01:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So how does that lead you to deduce an intelligence was involved? Seriously, as written, your argument is as follows: "Interdependant organs change in ways that affect one another, therefore intelligent design." Huh?
I don't think you understood that at all. Maybe I didn't parse it very well. A heart would not evolve before vessels were present to carry blood, a kidney was present to clean out the blood, lungs were present to oxygenate the blood, etc.
Why would lungs evolve before a heart existed to pump what they oxygenate?
Why would vessels evolve to carry blood that does not exist to be pumped by a heart that doesn't exist.
Unless you are some kind of theistic evolutionist that believes the mammalian circulatory system was guided by some higher intelligence, then it is scientifically impossible that nature would know there would someday be a heart present and so it would begin selecting now for a kidney, lungs, blood vessels, hemoglobin, plasma, etc. to work with a soon coming heart.
1) What would evolve first in this system, a heart, a lung, hemoglobin, blood vessels or a kidney?
2) Why would any one organ evolve when the other components of this system are not also present where the system can function?
3) What would be the factors in natural selection that could cause a heart to evolve when it has no blood to pump, lungs to oxygenate that blood and blood vessels to carry the blood?
quote:
Also, you know damn well that evolution doesn't propose anything like a "heart evolving to pump the blood that does not exist." That's a straw man argument, and we tend to dislike them here. If you plan to argue against evolution, please present it fairly.
Evolution doesn't propose anything like that. Darwinism does. Now tell me how this system evolved without intelligence, please. |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 02:25:27 [Permalink]
|
JerryB,
As you seem to cling on to your thermodynamics argument I will try to show you where you are wrong.
Example. You have a line of descendant living on earth starting with a first individual [a] to the last [Ab]. The changes in letters represent the changes in the genome, through mutations (additions, deletions and substitutions).
[a] - [aa] - [ab] - [aab] - [Aab] - [Ab]
Please explain where and why this conflicts with thermodynamics.
What is the entropy of the first individual? The last?
What is the entropy of the solar system at the time of the first individual? At the time of the last?
Main point:
The entropy of thermodynamics is not the same as in information theory.
The entropy of thermodynamics is not about complexity. It is about energy flow and energy distribution in a system.
An other thing.
A common misunderstanding (not just by you) is that appeal to Authority always is a false argument. This is not true. The experts in a field are usually right on questions regarding their field.
This doesn't mean that they always are right, but it could still be a valid argument, if not so strong.
It is appeal to false Authority that is fallacious.
Examples: The authority speaks outside his field (Dr Safarati on anything other than superconductor chemistry).
The experts are divided on the subject or the referred authority holds a minority view (Dr. Alan Feduccia on bird evolution).
The expert was joking (Sen. John Glens appearance on the Frasier show).
Sometimes the false Authority can be correct, but to appeal to them as authorities is fallacious.
Tip:
If you want to prove that the experts in a field are wrong (like evolution is prohibited by thermodynamics) you better first study and understand the experts views on the subject.
Its not like you are the first to raise this argument, but the experts still dismiss it. Why do you think it is so?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.secondlaw.com
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/thermo.htm |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 02:42:27 [Permalink]
|
Boy I hate these chicken and the egg questions. Mostly because they are easy to answer through evolution. (By the way, the egg came first)
quote:
Why would lungs evolve before a heart existed to pump what they oxygenate?
Come on, the heart came way before lungs. This is because the heart came about in creatures that lived in the sea, and they either used gills or defused oxygen through a thin cell membrane (their skin is thin enough such as in the flatworm). Lungs developed later, first appearing as gas pocket to help the buoyancy of the fish, later becoming partially functioning lungs in fish such as the lung fish, finally becoming full lungs in amphibians.
quote:
Why would vessels evolve to carry blood that does not exist to be pumped by a heart that doesn't exist.
In some animals, there are open circulatory systems which do not need vessels. They simply pump blood into an open cavity and this all flows around giving oxygen to the entire body. This system is still present in insects.
quote:
1) What would evolve first in this system, a heart, a lung, hemoglobin, blood vessels or a kidney?
Excluding hemoglobin, the heart came first. As said before, this came before vessels in an open circulator system. I am not sure about the kidney, fish have them but I'm not sure if they first appeared in fish or were also in earlier life forms. The lung came next, as said before first acting as an air pocket to help a fish stay buoyant and then developing into lung sacs in the lungfish, and finally becoming full lungs in amphibians. I am not quite sure on the evolution of blood itself, I will ask around and see what I can find.
quote:
2) Why would any one organ evolve when the other components of this system are not also present where the system can function?
You need to provide examples if you wish me to attempt a response at your question. I could pick any organ system, for example digestive, where I could easily show how the organs entered one by one. But you need to challenge me, otherwise you could claim that I picked the easiest one to explain.
quote:
3) What would be the factors in natural selection that could cause a heart to evolve when it has no blood to pump, lungs to oxygenate that blood and blood vessels to carry the blood?
These questions have all been answered above, but I would like to go into something much more interesting. The heart, specifically in dealing with organisms where a circulatory system is present. What we find is that the heart came about in worms. It is a simple 1 track circulatory system with a 2 chambered heart. Very simple, blood goes around in a circle. The same system is present in fish. In amphibians however, there is a 2 track 3 chambered heart. Blood flows from the heart in 2 directions, one towards the lungs to become oxygenated, one towards the body to deliver oxygen. There are two separate tracks which both lead to the heart. What we find is that there is a wall in the middle. Not a complete wall, but a partial wal |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 03:10:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Lungs developed later, first appearing as gas pocket to help the buoyancy of the fish, later becoming partially functioning lungs in fish such as the lung fish, finally becoming full lungs in amphibians.
I think you are wrong on this small point, Ricky.
I heard that it is the other way around, swim bladders evolved from lungs.
quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
... Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
... Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Anybody kow more?
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 03:58:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Lungs developed later, first appearing as gas pocket to help the buoyancy of the fish, later becoming partially functioning lungs in fish such as the lung fish, finally becoming full lungs in amphibians.
I think you are wrong on this small point, Ricky.
I heard that it is the other way around, swim bladders evolved from lungs.
quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
... Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
... Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Anybody kow more?
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Lungs developed later, first appearing as gas pocket to help the buoyancy of the fish, later becoming partially functioning lungs in fish such as the lung fish, finally becoming full lungs in amphibians.
I think you are wrong on this small point, Ricky.
I heard that it is the other way around, swim bladders evolved from lungs.
quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
... Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
... Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Anybody kow more?
The lung/swim bladder question ain't all that easy. It should be remembered that today, some fish have no swim bladder and some have a lung. And some actually get a large part of their oxygen through gulping air and absorcing it throught capillaries in the roof of the mouth. The electric eel takes in as much as 80% of it's oxygen in just this manner.
Both the lung and swim bladder developed from the gastrointestinal system. The lung is thought to have first developed in fish that inhabited stagnent waters. It is thought that the Devonian had long perions of drought, stranding fish in stagnent pools. Thus, a lung of sorts would be to the animal's advantage. Today's lungfish (two species) actually burrow into the drying mud during drought, encase themselves in a wad of mucous, and 'sleep' for as long as it takes for the waters to return. This can also be seen in some species of frogs and toads.
Which came first; the bladder or the lung? Good question; damn' if I know. Later, I'll look into it a little deeper, but for now, here's a little from MadSci on it:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb2002/1014304962.Ev.r.html
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 05:59:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can reword every one of those into predictions. How about: ID predicts that organisms originate fully formed and ready to go in their environment.
Great, we have a prediction from ID. Evidence to back up this prediction - Zero.
quote:
But I don't understand this without intelligence involved. Take a mammalian circulatory system. They are IC systems and consist macroscopically of a heart, lungs, blood vessels, hemoglobin, plasma, a kidney and a brain. How would a kidney know that a heart was coming later to pump the blood that does not exist yet so it can be there when needed? How could lungs know that a kidney would later evolve so it goes ahead and evolves now so it will be there? Conversely, why would a heart evolve before there is blood to pump, a kidney to keep that blood clean and lungs to oxygenate what it pumps?
These separate components must be formed together unless you're claiming magic or intelligence or something.
Oh please... All of these organs were present in the animals that EVOLVED into mammals.
Again you write:
quote:
These separate components must be formed together
'Scuse my language, but bull shit! Why do you keep saying MUST?
Earthworms have a heart, a brain, and a circulatory system. The do not have lungs or gills. I do realize that a worm is not a mammal, but the point is animals develope these organs individually and their descendants develope additional organs.
Mammals (or any other species) did not *pop* into existence fully formed. Where is your evidence?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 10/29/2004 09:13:40 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 07:17:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not advocating a designer. Please read the posts as this has been addressed. And I can assure you that there is no logical analogy at all between ID and a baseball game. Bad analogy, I'm afraid.
If you're not advocating a designer, then what are you doing?
If something is designed, it must have a designer.
You drop in with all of your nonsense and claim that ID is real, supported by facts, and is a science. Well, who's the designer? This is not an unreasonable question, and it's one you should be able to make a prediction about. Afterall, an experienced watchmaker/repairman could easily make a prediction about who made the watch I ask him to examine. Why can't you, as an alleged ID scientist, make a prediction about who the designer is?
And if you are really stupid enough to think I'm comparing ID to a baseball game....
What I was doing is comparing your position that you don't know/care who the designer is to me declaring a winner of the world series, and not knowing who the winner was.
Unintelligent design claims that there is a designer. Unless you can provide an ID for the designer predicted by your ID theory, you sound like some jackass all excited about the series being won and not knowing who won it. It's a perfect analogy. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 08:47:25 [Permalink]
|
If irreducibly complex systems were designed, wouldn't we expect to find much better designed systems from the git go? That would seem to be a prediction that would support ID. Instead we find systems that, while needing all of the components to work properly, are somewhat less than perfect from a design standpoint. Evolution has to work with what is available. And what we see in the systems that are IC often look like an assemblage made up of many pre-existing parts that have evolved to take on different functions from what we see in earlier species. Which is exactly what evolution predicts…
If ID is correct, why are many IC systems overly complex?
If ID is correct, why do species ever have mutations?
If all species arrive fully and complete, why do they have useless parts? Parts that worked for ancestor species but no longer have a function? Darwinian evolution predicts all of that.
I could go on and on. The point is, what we see in the fossil record is what evolution predicts. And what we see in living species is what evolution predicts. Why even consider ID? The designs are not all that good. They work. And that is all that evolution suggests that they do.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 10:39:48 [Permalink]
|
I see a lot of stuff on thermodynamics. I won't pretend I've authority or knowledge to argue with that. For instance, I'm nineteen and I study computer science; I am no biologist, chemist or physicist. However, I do have a question:
If it truly were such, do you honestly think every single (serious) physicist in the world is deluded? Wouldn't they have yelled 'Wolf!' a long time ago? What is the cause of their confusion? Sheer misunderstanding? Are you implying the vast majority of physicists in the world are ignorant of biology, that they don't care, or that they're simply wrong?
quote:
A tree is an open system but this is not the reason it becomes ordered. It becomes ordered because a designer preprogrammed code that goes into a seed jammed packed with nutrients and hormones designed to get that tree off and running.
Why?
quote:
I could go to the old quote mine but probably not necessary. Suffice it to say that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis interspersed with intense bursts of new speciations. These critters come into the record fully formed and ready to go in their environment. The fossil record supports the design concept and no other concept of origins.
Again, why? We've seen many species evolve. We've seen species go extinct. We've seen the fossil record. If the design is slow and the design is constant, if the design is discarded and another's created from it... then what's the logical different it has from evolution as we understand it, other than assuming it was so for a purpose?
I'd like also to bring another question.
quote:
And if this experiment showed anything, it showed that particles must be observed in order to act in certain ways.
I'm afraid I don't get this. Maybe I missed something.
If we observe something, we can see it happen. If we don't, we don't see it happen - which doesn't mean it can't happen or that it isn't happening.
I really am trying to understand... but I'm failing miserably here.
Another thing: define complex. What's complexity for you? Is a diamond complex? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 10:42:23 [Permalink]
|
JerryB wrote:quote:
Evolution doesn't propose anything like that. Darwinism does.
Well, go find and argue the point with a strict Darwinist, then. The folks here understand that evolutionary science has moved well beyond Darwin's ideas.quote:
*******And who says that biological processes are "spontaneous" events or reactions?*******
I would have no idea. I certainly didn't say it.
Then what relevance does the SLOT have to the evolution of biological organisms?quote:
LOL...That show's I am incorrect? But I'm the guy that said it. So how does the fact that what I just stated is correct show that I'm incorrect.
Doesn't really matter anymore, if the SLOT is irrelevant.quote:
It can be shown mathematically when coupled with the biology paper I just posted showing how the human genome is becoming more disordered over time.
But it doesn't show that. Your premise is not true.quote:
Tons of them. I just posted one for you that was published in Nature.
And it concludes "thus, there must be a designer"? I'm surprised that hasn't been discussed anywhere.quote:
I can reword every one of those into predictions. How about: ID predicts that organisms originate fully formed and ready to go in their environment.
And that is not what is found, so the prediction is wrong.quote:
Now what predictions can you give me that Darwinism makes?
What's it matter? I'm not arguing for Darwinism.quote:
I fail to see how that addresses my assertion that Dembski is a philosopher and advocates ID from a philosophical paradigm.
Both links, together, show that Dembski advocates ID for theological purposes, for the establishment of God within science.quote:
I mean that wasn't exactly a scientific experiment you posted.
Since when do quotes from proponents of certain viewpoints require a scientific experiment?quote:
I haven't seen much science come out of Dembski, just math and philosophy. That's OK, because that has its place as well. I'm asserting that we are studying the same ID, just from different perspectives.
No, you're asserting that Dembski is interested in the philosophical aspects of ID, which appears to only be secondary for him to the religious aspects of demonstrating "the Glory of God."quote:
They can be theists, atheists or agnostics. Mox nix. If their science walks it walks. I could care less about their religious beliefs, their morals or their sexual orientation. And all I care about is what ID is now, not how it started. But I suppose you think that Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle who argued teleology in the halls of ancient Greece were Christians?
Who said anything about Christians? Let's say this again: modern ID began as a political movement, and it is still a political movement. There's no science to it.quote:
You must not be aware of what I'm talking about. Please explain this experiment:
http://www.geocities.com/sunjara/ProphesyingParticles.html
Sigh. The assumption, as made in the article, that one can apply common sense to quantum mechanics is false. That doesn't mean that photons are intelligent.quote:
Then you misread the article:
Now you're assuming that I can predict the future, since I didn't have a chance to read the article you just linked to.quote:
I'm quote mining because I point out what the reference you posted actually says? Sheeze...You're being a little tough on me aren't you?
No. You implied that the only way to refute Tipler was to demonstrate his math to be wrong. I quoted Tipler himself saying that such an implication is untrue, and that he may have used an incorrect assumption about the universe. Your quote was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and specifically ignored the point in order to prop up Tipler.quote:
Yes, I said this. But I didn't say that this was all due to mutational meltdown.
No, I quoted you not saying so. But what's it matter? You say ID predicts mutational meltdown? Big deal, so do evolutionary theories.quote:
Not that I'm aware of. ID doesn't have much to do with those fields. But they certainly use design detection just as we do.
No, they don't. They don't rely on math and "CSI" and arguments from ignorance to "deduce" design. They simply compare what they see to known examples of design.quote:
What difference does it make that one designed system is made from inorganic chemicals and the other of organic chemicals? Can you tell me the difference in the molecules considering the natural death of an organism 1 minute before death and 1 minute after death? Yes, I can detect design in nature.
I asked if you could |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 10:43:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
If irreducibly complex systems were designed, wouldn't we expect to find much better designed systems from the git go? That would seem to be a prediction that would support ID. Instead we find systems that, while needing all of the components to work properly, are somewhat less than perfect from a design standpoint. Evolution has to work with what is available. And what we see in the systems that are IC often look like an assemblage made up of many pre-existing parts that have evolved to take on different functions from what we see in earlier species. Which is exactly what evolution predicts…
If ID is correct, why are many IC systems overly complex?
If ID is correct, why do species ever have mutations?
If all species arrive fully and complete, why do they have useless parts? Parts that worked for ancestor species but no longer have a function? Darwinian evolution predicts all of that.
I could go on and on. The point is, what we see in the fossil record is what evolution predicts. And what we see in living species is what evolution predicts. Why even consider ID? The designs are not all that good. They work. And that is all that evolution suggests that they do.
Kil makes an excellent point. For example, any good welding shop could come up with a better knee that the rusty hinge we currently have. And why exactly, are we 'designed' with an appendix that can go septic for no good reason and kill us?
Here's a couple of links on the lung/bladder question:
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/BonyFish/anatomy.html
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/crone/3051/highli05.html
Isn't it interesting that that something as mundane as a gas-filled bladder could have come from something as complicated as a lung, however rudimentary? But, that's evolution for ya!
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 10:48:52 [Permalink]
|
Where do you people find the time? Nevermind the motivation . . .  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 12:15:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Where do you people find the time? Nevermind the motivation . . .
Here, mayhaps?
quote:
IDists...
On Intelligent Design...
ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
Greater and greater numbers of scientists are joining the ID movement, which is why we keep referring to the same three year after year. [1]
ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution".[2]
We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. [3]
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]
ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement which does not support ID, but does say that they are "skeptical" of Darwinism. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don't count, because they're all biased. [5]
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/hunch/hunch.html
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 13:06:55 [Permalink]
|
Anywho. Going back to the original post, you can make your voice heard. Please join me by emailing the Pennsylvania School Board! Please go to this site. http://ga1.org/campaign/pennsylvania_ID/wei35kdrqk6bi3 It will send an email with this message:
"Subject: Intelligent Design Has No Place in Science Curriculum
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],
The school board of the Dover Area School District should reverse its decision to include "Intelligent Design" (ID) in its biology curriculum as soon as possible.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It fails the criteria for a real scientific theory laid out in the 1982 Supreme Court decision, McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education, namely that real science is: (1) guided by natural - physical or biological - law; (2) explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) testable against the empirical world; (4) tentative in its conclusions; and (5) falsifiable, i.e., makes predictions that can be tested by observation.
Intelligent Design is a philosophical and theological position based on the misrepresentation of evolution as a "contested" theory. In fact, the theory of evolution is accepted with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
Teaching ID to the students of the Dover Area School District and giving them the impression that the theory of evolution through natural selection is somehow "controversial" in the scientific community is preparing them for a lifetime of uninformed ignorance.
The Dover Area School Board members should be ashamed of themselves for jeopardizing the education of the students in their care.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]"
Edited to add the damn link. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 10/29/2004 13:09:01 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
