Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 25 2010 at 01:42
Trademark wrote:
Dean wrote:
You might just as well argue against Evolution just because you don't like the idea of being descended from an ape, or because you don't like bananas.
How on earth is it that you take these things seriously when I say them? What's happened to you? Are you unwell? Take 2 aspirin and call someone in the morning you poor dear boy.
How the fk can me saying "...argue against Evolution ... because you don't like bananas" be taken seriously?!??! Is sarcasm an alien concept on your planet?
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 25 2010 at 02:43
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
In the cultural sense that Mike used it, (taken from the title of Darrel Ray's book) a virus has positive or negative connotation determined solely by your point of view. It simply describes the way in which (religious) ideas are propagated through a comminity - to an Atheist the way a religion can spread through a community is a negative, but for a Theist surely that must be a positive connotation.
Surely Mike's connotation wasn't positive:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
In a way it's like a mutating virus, and of course that's a "threat" to doctors who attempt to fight it.
BTW: Viruses attack or infect without the person's will, so there's no way we can see a religion that infects people without their will as positive.
Dean wrote:
In biology a virus can be good or bad. Viruses are responsible for genetic mutaion and the transfer of genetic material between species, hence are a means in which species evolve - without viruses we'd still be fish. Some viruses strengthen our immune system - immunisation uses weak viruses to build up our resistance to stronger ones - for example the use of cow-pox to irradicate small-pox. Viruses are also responsible for the "health" of the oceans, regulating the salinity and in keeping down the toxity of the water by killing off harmful bacteria.
A virus that doctors attempt to fight, is not a positive one Dean. And I'm sure you know what Mike means.
Iván
So, in essence you agree with Mike (and Dawkins and Ray) that religion is a cultural virus and chose to accept their negative connotation, even after I have pointed out that it can be positive or it can also be used to describe atheism and that most christians see it as a gift not an infection. Of course militant-atheists make negative analogies - they don't like religions, if you chose to be offended by those analogies it implies that you have no argument against them. If you don't agree with the analogy then argue against it, not the fact that the analogy is negative or that it was intended in a bad way - show that the analogy is false, or accept the positive connotations as being applicable.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 25 2010 at 03:08
aginor wrote:
the Theisme and Atheisme debate is to out of my leage of intelegence that I can't realy express what I mean or not, but I think of this often, about believe and not believe in the Metaphysical, but I admire the Bible influence on art, architecture and music, but I also like the progress and ideas of Science, and I'm a fan of the Age of Enlightment
I'm not ether a fan of Dawkins (though it would be interesting to have a chatt with the man, and drink some wiskey)
but this lecture is realy interesting...
It's one of my favorite lectures by Dawkins - the beginning is maybe a bit too much on the jokey side, but that of course is owed to the "Expelled" movie as a first cause (pun intended).
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Posted: August 25 2010 at 09:11
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Trademark wrote:
On Evolution, by Trademark
It appears that it is something that happens more or less along the lines laid out by those who study it intently. I am not one of them. I cannot speak conclusively on the subject and will not try. The minutiae of exactly how it works is, for the most part irrelevant to me. What would interest me (if I ever got interested) is why it works, and here there is much less consensus. My time left on earth being down to 3 decades or so won't likely give me an answer.
"Why it works" is actually a "how does it work" question - Evolution by natural selection can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, so my answer to "why does it work" would be "because it does, and we can demonstrate it".
Rule #5: "Change the rules". You can't change the rules here. I meant what I said and said I what I meant and I meant WHY. Why is a metaphysical question. How is irrelevant to me.
Trademark wrote:
More important than why it works though is how it started. The answer to this renders all other questions moot. Big Bands (sorry Ivan, couldn't resist), cosmic cataclysms, singularities, etc., etc.; there are lots of possibilities and no answers. Until this piece of “evidence” to use Mike's term, is in place I think it is impossible and possibly illogical to say that accepting the science leads to Atheism. The pigheadedness of the Atheist scientist limits his ability just as much as it does the fundamentalist scientist.
As an atheist I simply reject Theist claims until there is sufficient evidence for believing in them. Atheists don't claim to know how the universe was created - and why should they. The Atheist position has nothing to do with these details, since it does not make any positive claims about abiogenesis or the creation of the universe. Theists on the other hand do make positive claims about these events, and therefore have the burden of proof. I know that Theists often play the "Atheism is just an alternative theory" card, but it's simply not the same. When I say "I don't know how it happened, and I don't accept your explanation until you can demonstrate it to be true" ... how does that need "evidence" to back it up? It doesn't, since it is not a positive claim of knowledge.
Rule #4: "You try to to shift the burden of proof". There is no burden of proof on me. I have nothing I care to prove. You asked a question which I answered.
Trademark wrote:
Science leads to discovery and discovery to revelation. Science may (or may not) one day prove it all to be true. Since no one can say or know it seems unworthy of my trust as a concrete item to build my belief system on. Living based on only “what we know at this moment” is a highly limiting way of life and may prevent our being able to learn from what happens tomorrow.
Evolution is a fairly insignificant blip in the grand scheme of things. As an important factor in life I'd rank it somewhere between string cheese and clip on ties.
So you would rather base your life on Theism (e.g. Christianity) because it claims to know the answers to questions that science cannot answer, ignoring whether it can back up this rather bold claim with evidence. And you reject science until it has theories for everything and can back all of them up with evidence. This really seems like special pleading to me. Sorry, but I feel within my rights to call the Atheist position the more honest one. We admit that we don't know the answers to these questions.
Rule #3: "Refute all claims for lack of scientific evidence and add insult". This is a fairly elegant use of rule 3. it shows that you are evolving. Your methods having been exposed you make an attempt at subtlety by implying that I am dishonest. Clumsy, but interesting; 1/2 point taken off for lacking "stones".
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 25 2010 at 09:55
Trademark wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Trademark wrote:
On Evolution, by Trademark
It appears that it is something that happens more or less along the lines laid out by those who study it intently. I am not one of them. I cannot speak conclusively on the subject and will not try. The minutiae of exactly how it works is, for the most part irrelevant to me. What would interest me (if I ever got interested) is why it works, and here there is much less consensus. My time left on earth being down to 3 decades or so won't likely give me an answer.
"Why it works" is actually a "how does it work" question - Evolution by natural selection can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, so my answer to "why does it work" would be "because it does, and we can demonstrate it".
Rule #5: "Change the rules". You can't change the rules here. I meant what I said and said I what I meant and I meant WHY. Why is a metaphysical question. How is irrelevant to me.
Metaphysical questions can't be answered to any degree of certainty ... why ask them in the first place?
Trademark wrote:
Trademark wrote:
More important than why it works though is how it started. The answer to this renders all other questions moot. Big Bands (sorry Ivan, couldn't resist), cosmic cataclysms, singularities, etc., etc.; there are lots of possibilities and no answers. Until this piece of “evidence” to use Mike's term, is in place I think it is impossible and possibly illogical to say that accepting the science leads to Atheism. The pigheadedness of the Atheist scientist limits his ability just as much as it does the fundamentalist scientist.
As an atheist I simply reject Theist claims until there is sufficient evidence for believing in them. Atheists don't claim to know how the universe was created - and why should they. The Atheist position has nothing to do with these details, since it does not make any positive claims about abiogenesis or the creation of the universe. Theists on the other hand do make positive claims about these events, and therefore have the burden of proof. I know that Theists often play the "Atheism is just an alternative theory" card, but it's simply not the same. When I say "I don't know how it happened, and I don't accept your explanation until you can demonstrate it to be true" ... how does that need "evidence" to back it up? It doesn't, since it is not a positive claim of knowledge.
Rule #4: "You try to to shift the burden of proof". There is no burden of proof on me. I have nothing I care to prove. You asked a question which I answered.
If you're a Theist then you are making claims. You can choose not to prove them, but that doesn't mean that someone who questions their validity needs to provide evidence. You have requested me to back up my position with evidence several times, or complained that I requested evidence from Theists. Please accept that some positions require evidence in order to be taken seriously, and some don't (since they don't make any positive claims).
Trademark wrote:
Trademark wrote:
Science leads to discovery and discovery to revelation. Science may (or may not) one day prove it all to be true. Since no one can say or know it seems unworthy of my trust as a concrete item to build my belief system on. Living based on only “what we know at this moment” is a highly limiting way of life and may prevent our being able to learn from what happens tomorrow.
Evolution is a fairly insignificant blip in the grand scheme of things. As an important factor in life I'd rank it somewhere between string cheese and clip on ties.
So you would rather base your life on Theism (e.g. Christianity) because it claims to know the answers to questions that science cannot answer, ignoring whether it can back up this rather bold claim with evidence. And you reject science until it has theories for everything and can back all of them up with evidence. This really seems like special pleading to me. Sorry, but I feel within my rights to call the Atheist position the more honest one. We admit that we don't know the answers to these questions.
Rule #3: "Refute all claims for lack of scientific evidence and add insult". This is a fairly elegant use of rule 3. it shows that you are evolving. Your methods having been exposed you make an attempt at subtlety by implying that I am dishonest. Clumsy, but interesting; 1/2 point taken off for lacking "stones".
You're responding cleverly in that you're refusing to accept that you're the one making positive claims. There's no need for you to spell them out, the fact that you're a Theist means that you're making claims.
BTW: As long as you concede that you have no evidence for your claims, you're not being dishonest at all. What I'm saying is that Theists who claim that there are good reasons for their belief cannot defend that position without sacrificing their intellectual honesty. In other words: Their reasoning is flawed at some point. If you - or any other Theist - disagree, I'll be happy to discuss the specific claims, which is kind of the the original topic of the thread.
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Posted: August 25 2010 at 10:34
^This was your question:
“@Trademark: What do you actually think about Evolution?”
I answered it.
I have nothing I want or need to add or change. Prattling on (I'm using your rule #3 here) about “positive claims” has nothing whatever to do with the question you asked or my response to it.
to paraphrase: “Mike's Rules can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, (I just did) so my answer to "why does does he do it?" would be "because he does, and we can demonstrate it".
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 25 2010 at 11:04
Dean wrote:
So, in essence you agree with Mike (and Dawkins and Ray) that religion is a cultural virus and chose to accept their negative connotation, even after I have pointed out that it can be positive or it can also be used to describe atheism and that most christians see it as a gift not an infection. Of course militant-atheists make negative analogies - they don't like religions, if you chose to be offended by those analogies it implies that you have no argument against them. If you don't agree with the analogy then argue against it, not the fact that the analogy is negative or that it was intended in a bad way - show that the analogy is false, or accept the positive connotations as being applicable.
Dean, have you read the previous póst?
I say that a virus attacks or infects without the intervention of the will.
Religious choice is a voluntary act. Surely you are induced by your parents in most cases,m but you decide if to follow or quit being a religious people, you can't decide when a virue leaves your body.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 25 2010 at 11:36
Trademark wrote:
^This was your question:
“@Trademark: What do you actually think about Evolution?”
I answered it.
I have nothing I want or need to add or change. Prattling on (I'm using your rule #3 here) about “positive claims” has nothing whatever to do with the question you asked or my response to it.
If you want to leave it at that, I'm fine with it. I responded to your response and am perfectly fine with leaving it at that as well.
Trademark wrote:
to paraphrase: “Mike's Rules can be demonstrated under laboratory conditions, (I just did) so my answer to "why does does he do it?" would be "because he does, and we can demonstrate it".
If you want to make this much more complicated than it is, I certainly won't stop you.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 25 2010 at 11:43
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
So, in essence you agree with Mike (and Dawkins and Ray) that religion is a cultural virus and chose to accept their negative connotation, even after I have pointed out that it can be positive or it can also be used to describe atheism and that most christians see it as a gift not an infection. Of course militant-atheists make negative analogies - they don't like religions, if you chose to be offended by those analogies it implies that you have no argument against them. If you don't agree with the analogy then argue against it, not the fact that the analogy is negative or that it was intended in a bad way - show that the analogy is false, or accept the positive connotations as being applicable.
Dean, have you read the previous póst?
I say that a virus attacks or infects without the intervention of the will.
Religious choice is a voluntary act. Surely you are induced by your parents in most cases,m but you decide if to follow or quit being a religious people, you can't decide when a virue leaves your body.
So I don't see that the analogy works.
Iván
Religious choice is not voluntary in most cases - ask any Muslim (that's admittedly an extreme example), or ask people who were told in their childhood that they would burn in hell if they didn't believe in Jesus. Even I remember that, because even though my parents weren't particular religious and since I wasn't baptized I would go to ethics class in school instead of religious classes, the elementary school that I was going to was involved with the (Catholic) church, and I remember the nuns, along with my grand parents, telling me about hell. I can only begin to imagine how it would be like if I had been baptized and branded "Catholic child" even before I learned to walk.
Besides: The analogy works when you stop mixing up the two sides - you're trying to attribute the traits of a biological virus to religion, and those of religion to the biological virus.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: August 25 2010 at 12:13
Trademark, Mike doesn't truly get evolution either and doesn't want to worry about the details. I've argued with him at length on this. We get to a certain depth and he backs out. Same as all of us, he has some belief in something he doesn't understand. That's ok, our brains are limited.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 25 2010 at 12:33
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
So, in essence you agree with Mike (and Dawkins and Ray) that religion is a cultural virus and chose to accept their negative connotation, even after I have pointed out that it can be positive or it can also be used to describe atheism and that most christians see it as a gift not an infection. Of course militant-atheists make negative analogies - they don't like religions, if you chose to be offended by those analogies it implies that you have no argument against them. If you don't agree with the analogy then argue against it, not the fact that the analogy is negative or that it was intended in a bad way - show that the analogy is false, or accept the positive connotations as being applicable.
Dean, have you read the previous póst?
I say that a virus attacks or infects without the intervention of the will.
Religious choice is a voluntary act. Surely you are induced by your parents in most cases,m but you decide if to follow or quit being a religious people, you can't decide when a virue leaves your body.
So I don't see that the analogy works.
Iván
I did read your (btw) comment, but chose to ignore it as I thought that it didn't support your case very well.
At six months old I was not asked if I wanted to be anglican so for the next 12½ years I was an anglican - of course I chose not to be anglican at age 13 when I elected not to be confirmed, but I remained christian of various denominations for many years after that, a spiritual person for a few years more and an agnostic for a few more again.
You cannot decide not to be christian overnight - your free will in this has been compromised, your conscience will nag at you and you will have doubts for some time before you can turn around and say with confidence "I am an atheist" - someone who has never been "induced " into a religion does not have that difficulty.
Both my parents were anglican, if I one of them were catholic I would have been a catholic, if one of them had been muslim I would have been a muslim, if both were jewish I would have been jewish, if both were buddhist I would have been buddhist... there is no free will involved here - you do not chose your religion - when you are "an adult" you can decide to change your religion, but family pressure will be against you.
So in that respect, while belief may appear to be like an viral infection, it is closer to an inherited condition because it is passed down from the parent - however I think that is a specious analogy too because the parents could chose not to induct the child into their religion until they achieved the age of consent and allow their free will to chose.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 25 2010 at 12:44
Negoba wrote:
Trademark, Mike doesn't truly get evolution either and doesn't want to worry about the details. I've argued with him at length on this. We get to a certain depth and he backs out. Same as all of us, he has some belief in something he doesn't understand. That's ok, our brains are limited.
I'd rather call it a "mental block" - kind of like a knee-jerk defense mechanism against rational arguments. On behalf of Theists in respect to evolution, that is. As far as our discussion goes - maybe when you make such a bold claim you could get those who are following this thread up to speed as to how I don't truly get evolution.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 25 2010 at 13:08
Dean wrote:
I did read your (btw) comment, but chose to ignore it as I thought that it didn't support your case very well.
At six months old I was not asked if I wanted to be anglican so for the next 12½ years I was an anglican - of course I chose not to be anglican at age 13 when I elected not to be confirmed, but I remained christian of various denominations for many years after that, a spiritual person for a few years more and an agnostic for a few more again.
You cannot decide not to be christian overnight - your free will in this has been compromised, your conscience will nag at you and you will have doubts for some time before you can turn around and say with confidence "I am an atheist" - someone who has never been "induced " into a religion does not have that difficulty.
That's not the general rule, neither what the Church wants. look at my case.
I was baptized Catholic, I studied in a Catholic School (This are the best that can be afforded), but around 9th grade I became an absolute agnostic for several years.
After two years in the university I took Theology, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 because always liked the study of religions, and only then I decided to be a Catholic.
That's why we have a sacrament called CONFIRMATION, only when you are sure that you want to be a Catholic, you confirm,before the Bishop, I was confirmed when I was 23 years old.
Before Vatican II, kids were confirmed at the age of 10, but the Church decided they were not old enough to make a valid choice, that's why 10% of Catholics (specially the most poor) have chosen in the last 10 years to abandon Catholicism and become Evangelists, something that didn't happened so often before Vatican II.
It's the same case as many friends who are sons of radical Communists, they are taught about Communism or Socialism being the best system, but they choose to be completely right oriented, despite what their fathers want, one of them has as first name Lenin, but I knew him in the Social Christian party (The most right oriented formal party)
So, you may be baptized as Catholic, but the Church wants Catholics that make a voluntary decision, not that you can change to another religion (as you say), you MUSTt confirm you want to be a Catholic by own choice.
Dean wrote:
Both my parents were anglican, if I one of them were catholic I would have been a catholic, if one of them had been muslim I would have been a muslim, if both were jewish I would have been jewish, if both were buddhist I would have been buddhist... there is no free will involved here - you do not chose your religion - when you are "an adult" you can decide to change your religion, but family pressure will be against you.
So in that respect, while belief may appear to be like an viral infection, it is closer to an inherited condition because it is passed down from the parent - however I think that is a specious analogy too because the parents could chose not to induct the child into their religion until they achieved the age of consent and allow their free will to chose.
I don't know about your family, but they never forced or pressured me for nothing, even they are Catholics they said nothing when I became an agnostic, or even when they are moderate right oriented, they never said a word when I joined the Social Christian party (Except when my grades started to go down from straight A's to many B's and a couple of C's, because the political work), otherwise, they supported my choices, even if they didn't agree...
In the 90's we had 30 millions inhabitants, with an average of 95% Catholics, in this case almost 3 million Catholics have became Evangelists, and nobody receives pressure as far as I know.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: August 25 2010 at 13:18
Ivan, in my country (which probably is similar to yours on this regard) confirmation usually happens by the sixth grade... At that point in life nobody is really able to say "I don't want to be confirmed!" Most parents decide whether the child will be confirmed or not, not the child himself.
I don't think religion is ever a free choice for children.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: August 25 2010 at 13:45
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Trademark, Mike doesn't truly get evolution either and doesn't want to worry about the details. I've argued with him at length on this. We get to a certain depth and he backs out. Same as all of us, he has some belief in something he doesn't understand. That's ok, our brains are limited.
I'd rather call it a "mental block" - kind of like a knee-jerk defense mechanism against rational arguments. On behalf of Theists in respect to evolution, that is. As far as our discussion goes - maybe when you make such a bold claim you could get those who are following this thread up to speed as to how I don't truly get evolution.
When we've discussed the complexity of evolution, we get to a point in terms of allele frequencies and genetic drift vs. natural selection vs. group evolution and other newer evolutionary ideas, and you have said you don't need to know that level of detail. This happens to coincide with places where Dawkins is on shaky ground in terms of linearity of his ideas.
I don't separate natural processes from the sacred or divine. I've learned to clarify these things for myself through these conversations here on PA.
My biggest beef is that you stand as if science backs you wholeheartedly and it doesn't. In fact, it can't as it's not designed for this argument.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 25 2010 at 13:53
The T wrote:
Ivan, in my country (which probably is similar to yours on this regard) confirmation usually happens by the sixth grade... At that point in life nobody is really able to say "I don't want to be confirmed!" Most parents decide whether the child will be confirmed or not, not the child himself.
I don't think religion is ever a free choice for children.
If I'm not wrong Ecuador never signed the Concordate with the Holy See that defines the atributions of the Church and the acts that afect education. , but again if I'm not wrong, in the 6th grade you don't do Confirmation, but First Communion.
I studied my whole school in Saint Mary's Catholic School, I made my first communion and first confession there, but never the Confirmation, I can tell you this by personal experience, my Sister also studied in a Catholic School and she made her confirmation in order to marry a few years ago, also I know this because I'm her confirmation Godfather.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 25 2010 at 14:42
Negoba wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Trademark, Mike doesn't truly get evolution either and doesn't want to worry about the details. I've argued with him at length on this. We get to a certain depth and he backs out. Same as all of us, he has some belief in something he doesn't understand. That's ok, our brains are limited.
I'd rather call it a "mental block" - kind of like a knee-jerk defense mechanism against rational arguments. On behalf of Theists in respect to evolution, that is. As far as our discussion goes - maybe when you make such a bold claim you could get those who are following this thread up to speed as to how I don't truly get evolution.
When we've discussed the complexity of evolution, we get to a point in terms of allele frequencies and genetic drift vs. natural selection vs. group evolution and other newer evolutionary ideas, and you have said you don't need to know that level of detail. This happens to coincide with places where Dawkins is on shaky ground in terms of linearity of his ideas.
I don't separate natural processes from the sacred or divine. I've learned to clarify these things for myself through these conversations here on PA.
As you said, we've been over this before. Your claim is that unless I'm willing to discuss with you every detail of the processes that have been found to be related to evolution, I'm not qualified to say anything about it. Well congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot without ever realizing it.
BTW: What are your credentials? If there's one person on the planet that understands evolution to an even greater level of detail than you claim to do, then by your own admission you're not qualified to talk about it.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're just a Theist with an especially nebulous version of the argument from ignorance ("God of the Gaps"). But even you were right and I was totally wrong about what evolution is, how it works and whether it's what actually happened, that still wouldn't give any credence to the theory that "God did it", which wouldn't have any explanatory power anyway.
Any comments on this by other users - do we need to get a degree in biology until we can talk about evolution?
Negoba wrote:
My biggest beef is that you stand as if science backs you
wholeheartedly and it doesn't. In fact, it can't as it's not designed
for this argument.
Which argument would that be? I'm not trying to use science to disprove God or any other unfalsifiable claim.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.277 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Super Duper Watermelon Man wrote:
How the f
k can me saying "...argue against Evolution ... because you don't like bananas" be taken seriously?!??! Is sarcasm an alien concept on your planet?
Any rock orbiting a star could tell you that. And scientists are just clever apes.