|
the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are. (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moongoose |
| I wery much doubt that anyone would be lynched by a mob of angry fanatical evolutionist if he would question the theory of evolution and could argument his point of wiev by solid facts. It is becouse people try to disprove it without any facts whatsoever on their side that evolutionist tend to be perhaps a bit more reluctant to listen to them. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I know, it is a crazy thought. |
Let me consult The Book of Revelations on this matter.
It says "Ack!"
Of course the ancient scriptures were written in a different time, so I will have to translate the meaning of this prophetic word of wisdom into a more colloquial message.
Translated it says
"The propagation of the theory of evolution is one of God's favourite examples of apomIXIs" |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution. Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown. Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd. A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate. Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible. This idea is hard for some to grasp, so rather than questioning if the "laws" of the bible are applicible towards people today, just as the laws of sciene are, they are simply written off as religious nuts. |
TVD's attacks against evolution have all been refuted time and time again by numerous posters. Every single argument posed by a creationist in this forum has been responded to whereas they feel the need to cherry pick the arguments they want to respond to. This debate has been going on for some two years now. So the fact that many in this thread casually dismiss TVD's arguments is because he's not presenting any new arguments. And while it's perfectly all right for people to look towards the bible for understanding the "mysteries" of life (they can look towards a where's waldo book for all I care), it hardly has a place in a classroom of science as does Mel Brook's History of the World has a place in history class.
But assuming we do teach creation myth in the classroom side by side with evolution, whose creation myth do we teach?
the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushiate, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, or Zulu?
Furthermore, I demand reciprosity:
 |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
TVD's attacks against evolution have all been refuted time and time again by numerous posters. Every single argument posed by a creationist in this forum has been responded to whereas they feel the need to cherry pick the arguments they want to respond to. This debate has been going on for some two years now. So the fact that many in this thread casually dismiss TVD's arguments is because he's not presenting any new arguments. And while it's perfectly all right for people to look towards the bible for understanding the "mysteries" of life (they can look towards a where's waldo book for all I care), it hardly has a place in a classroom of science as does Mel Brook's History of the World has a place in history class.
But assuming we do teach creation myth in the classroom side by side with evolution, whose creation myth do we teach?
the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushiate, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, or Zulu?
|
Hmm, not to be nitpicky, but I really didn't know that Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, among other nations, all have their own version of creationism myths. I suppose you could go back to some old slavic myths but in that case their stories of creation of the world are generally pretty much the same. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| I don't wnat to be misunderstood. I do not believe creationism has a place in a science class (the idea is ing laughable if it weren't so sad), nor do I believe in its place in the class room (public that is). However, I understand when people draw parallels to "untouchable" religion and "untouchable" science. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I've met plently of religious and non-religious ppl, and they're all equally stupid. At the same time I've come across a few religious and non-religious ppl, all equally intelligent. |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution. |
Evolution is both a theory and an observable fact, see below.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown. |
This is fair, but notice your own wording:
Creationists (without accusing you of being one) want Evolution to be held up to the lens of scientific reason and approached objectively ("the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it"), while they simultaneously refuse to have their own theories subject to the same calibre and degree of scrutiny.
Ask yourself who's being intellectually honest here and who isn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd. |
This isn't exactly fair.
What you're describing there is the scientific community's total consternation with the religious right, who refuse to do their basic homework so that a meaningful discussion can be had between the Evolutionists vs. the those that advocate Intelligent Design.
Evolution isn't a religion per se, but you have a case for a cult of intelligent reason. It was dawned by the Age of Enlightenment.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate. |
It's true that there are many whom are virulently contemptuous of the religious right.
But you have to understand the basis of that: when Creationists wave their hands and dismiss Evolution (or as Opus was saying, willfully and demonstrably misrepresent and/or distort it) what they are simultaneously doing is dismissing the scientist's life work (and thereby the basis of science). They are also dismissing the very basis for the advancement of human civilization. It is difficult to contend with that kind of behaviour.
When a scientist dismisses a Creationist, the Creationists get into an uproar. Why is it fair for one and not the other? ("Ask yourself who's being intellectually honest here and who isn't.")
This is another perfect example of the double-standard that the Creationist demands he should be able to apply at will, and which he insists is binding on all parties. When the scientist objects and refuses, the basis for common conversation disintegrates.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible. |
Scientists, logicians, atheists, agnostics have documented their case against the argument of the bible 200 years ago.
If Creationists insist on holding to the bible anyway, they should examine the arguments of the scientists and attempt to generate conversation on why they feel the scientist's argument is lacking with respect to creation as described in the bible.
When Creationists ignore the scientist's argument, and continue to pretend it doesn't exist, the scientist sees no basis for common conversation.
Scientists have done their biblical and scientific homework. We're ready to talk about the matter from any angle you may choose, or be interested in.
We're also waiting on the Creationists to extend the same courtesy. We'll even help you to do so:
--
Reposted from a response I made last week:
Introduction
God and Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Evolution and Philosophy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
Biology
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...to-biology.html
Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Fossil Hominids FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
-N |
|
|
| Seakr |
Something NEW under the sun??!!11ONE
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
i think so. do you? |
"And in world news apparently someone, somewhere doesn't like a man who loves Jesus. Startling to say the least." :rolleyes:
So what? I love God. Honestly dude...what's your point? You think I'm dumb, and unintelligent...so?
So you could say we both don't like things. You don't care for faith or God, and I don't care for sin.
The thing is, and here's the kicker...I still wouldn't treat you any different for NOT believing. Hate is lame. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
Science is fettered by alot of things, sometimes I find it hard to trust other humans after reading a bit about the science profession.
If you read say, Kuhn, or Popper, or some others, science sounds alot more like a power struggle to publish each person's opinion more than it sounds like an efficient method to reveal truths about the universe. There are alot of judgement calls made in science without any real empirical reason, those judgement calls that nobody seems to acknowledge are things that dont allow me to beleive that science is unfettered truth. The post-Openheimer national research system pioneered by Vanevar Bush (yes the very same Bush family) is not the best model for discovering the truth(IMHO).
That being said, evolution is pretty obvious and alot of people who interperet the bible literaly do tend to be in denial about some pretty elementary ideas that appear provable. Logic can't prove the existance of God for one side or the other, there is just as much uncertainty on both sides so I think that beleif in a god is neither a positive nor negative mark on a persons intelligence.
I don't think that the origins of life is important enough to take part in the argument of creation vs evolution, it is quite possible that both contain certain measures of correctness.
Beleiving in solely evolution requires one to believe that we owe our lives to random chance and the struggle to survive, which is a sad view in some ways, especially when one considers that alot of things happen for a reason and not because a random mutation happens to have survival value. One misses an important point which is, how are new evolutionary traits made? Random chance seems to be todays answer, but it really seems naive to say that randomness is the cause of so many significant things, it is not stupid to beleive that there are intelligent purposes behind phenomena that are not well understood.
Beleiving in solely creation requires one to beleive that we are all under the influence of some greater being that has seemingly unlimited abilities, and that everything that exists was designed by this being, making one dismiss the very noticable patterns in how living things have changed over time. One almost has to falsify the past in order to beleive that a higher being created everything the way we know it today. Sure theories like carbon dating, DNA evidence and others are debatable in some ways but one has to except that there are some truths about the world that science has the ability to reveal.
It is good to have faith in something, it is good to have evidence of something, but neither will make you smart or stupid, there is no correlation except at the extreme ends of the scale. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
Science is fettered by alot of things, sometimes I find it hard to trust other humans after reading a bit about the science profession.... |
Not a bad assessment, but a quick comment on this:
| quote: | | Beleiving in solely evolution requires one to believe that we owe our lives to random chance and the struggle to survive, which is a sad view in some ways, especially when one considers that alot of things happen for a reason and not because a random mutation happens to have survival value. One misses an important point which is, how are new evolutionary traits made? Random chance seems to be todays answer, but it really seems naive to say that randomness is the cause of so many significant things, it is not stupid to beleive that there are intelligent purposes behind phenomena that are not well understood. |
This is a pretty common misconception about evolution. First, it doesn't have to require a belief of any kind here - empirical data alone suffices quite well in our understanding.
Second, random chance (i.e. random mutation) is only 1/2 of the aspect involved with the evolutionary mechanism. The other 1/2, natural selection, is not a random event, but works much like a filter to sift out the deleterious events that lead to a less successful population and favors a more successful one. Random mutations occur all the time, even within our own bodies (something like 60-70 in our lifetime, but don't quote me). What evolution pertains to is the POPULATION, however, and not just one individual. So there's quite a lotta time that's involved in order for a mutated event(s) to be naturally selected out that accomodates a higher fitness rate in an ever-changing environment.
I don't mind at all that people have faith. Hell I think I've got a few drops of it myself. But intermingling faith within the science realm where one has to utilize valid evidence in our study of the natural world is illogical and misplaced. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
to me is seems that randomness filtered by natural selections is still randomness all the same. But when I see such complex lifeforms I just can't fool myself into thinking that entropy(however filtered it may be) is the root cause of it all.
I agree that faith does not belong in science, but that doesn't mean that it does not belong in life at all. We dont need religion to figure out the truth but more to guide people in making better heuristics for themselves. Guiding principles like "do unto others..." seem to be the more important point of religion rather than how we came into being. Things like that don't make a person stupid, using faith to oppose evidence however does seem like a stupid idea.
What empirical data is there that tells us why zebras grew stripes or how giraffes got really tall, except that some zebras happened to have stripes and some giraffes happened to have long necks, and those animals had more babies than the others. Actually I guess that isnt quite randomness, but moreso a selective breeding process. So then that would make it a sexual thing, whoever has the traits that gets them the most ass puts them in the next generation, I guess selective breeding would be the answer instead of randomness, but still, survival value and selective breeding remain mere filters of randomness. How did the machanisims for selecting a mate evolve during the time before organisms had the ability to select? Are we really supposed to beleive that in those times our ancestors just ed whatever they could reach until some of them randomly started having the ability to choose a mate?
Those random chances, the entropy, they are places where science is incomplete or not yet understood. It just CAN'T be that random occurances are the root cause of all living things. But evolution seems to make people want to believe that for the time being until somebody firugres something out. I think evolution is the right direction towards finding the truth but this root dependency on random chance is where the flaw is. I guess I am saying mutations have to have causes in order for evolution to make sense to me, there seem to be a few proven causes but not enough to explain all life.
Please forgive me if I didn't understand you. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
yikes, answered my own questions on the drive home from work
OK, so I realized that it is entrely possible that the abilty to make decisions came into being before it was even possible for lifeforms to "", and I can imagine how lifeforms evolved the ability to make decisions,
I would think it has a parallel to how we moved from a few transistors to advanced computers following moore's law.
Being an American student makes it hard to understand the details of evolution because it is too controversial to teach. So it just took me a bit longer to realize how some things about life could come into being by mutation/selection cycles rather than a driving force of some kind. But if the capability to make decisions came before the concept of male-female and sex then I can see that evolution does in fact have a guiding force, and that force seems to be the lifeforms themselves. So it would just be a matter of discovering the order in which things hapened, which could b possible if that order was found with evicende rather than artificial arguents brought up just for the sake of preserving the theory or satisfy the funders, which scientists have been known to do.
I had a bit of a breakthrough today, w00t. |
|
|
|
|
