Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 140 of 177 (548470)
02-27-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by PaulK
02-22-2010 2:52 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
PaulK writes:
Abiogenesis research is making scientific progress in determining how life might have originated. Where is the equivalent ID research ?
Where is the equivalent access for ID to university grants, acceptance in the scientific community, exposure to new students, free passes from legal challenges?
What you mean here is that the courts are brought in to counter illegal political action from the ID side. It is the ID supporters who try to use the political process to change the curriculum to favour their religious beliefs.
Not necessarily to favor religious beliefs, but to challenge a previous establishment of atheistic beliefs, which violates the first amendment.
Complaining that ID can't get special favourable treatment is hardly evidence that ID is being held to a higher standard.
It is when atheism gets special favorable treatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2010 2:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 8:09 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 145 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2010 1:22 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 02-28-2010 1:29 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2010 4:40 AM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 141 of 177 (548472)
02-27-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
02-22-2010 8:48 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Percy writes:
What "other science" isn't being held to the requirements of falsifiability?
Abiogenesis, and others — you were the one who said it! From your message 124;
quote:
To the extent that there's a theory of abiogenesis, all it says is that life originated through natural means. How are you going to falsify that, since the same assumption underlies all scientific study?
But ID isn't being ruled out by science. It's being deemed "not science." About things that are "not science" science has no comment. That's why science doesn't rule out God, and it doesn't rule out ID.
You’re claiming that science considers itself equal to other forms of knowledge, and in reality it doesn’t do that. Science has a prestige, a position of superiority. Naturalism is treated in science as an absolute truth, to a much greater extent than it is throughout the population at large. While the scientific community doesn’t directly claim science to be absolutely true and infallible, within our society anything that is the best scientific account of about any subject will automatically demand the public’s immediate acceptance. Any other form of knowledge takes a distant back seat to whatever political positions the scientific community takes. It’s this type of human imperfection that causes anything put forward by ID to be unfairly/emotionally attacked, while anything put forward by abiogenesis study to be unfairly/emotionally accepted as truth.
Well, at least you're honest about being religiously motivated, but in the science forums it would be nice if you'd confine yourself to scientific arguments about abiogenesis.
That’s not a religious motivation, it’s a political motivation. A motivation to counter unconstitutional political action from the scientific community. These forums aren’t only about nuts-and-bolts science, they’re about the social aspects of science. I’m not a scientist, and I can’t go into scientific details on an equal basis with scientists. But I’m a middle aged member of a society that is supposed to have open inquiry, and I can discuss social aspects of science with anybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 02-22-2010 8:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2010 11:19 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 02-28-2010 6:10 AM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 157 of 177 (549789)
03-10-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by hooah212002
02-27-2010 8:09 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Do you have any idea how new scientific studies work? You seem to be under the impression that ANYTHING can be labeled science and be awarded funding. NO!
Not necessarily awarded funding, but labeled science, yes. Maybe not in this day and age, but in past decades/centuries. When looking at the SETI institute’s website, we see that it was founded in late 1984, and began operations in early 1985. On its education page, we find this;
quote:
Curiosity motivates both exploration and learning in schools, science centers, colleges and universities. In a less formal venue, several million people per year tap into the Institute's website and podcast radio show for cutting edge science, technology and opinion. Others learn about our astrobiology and SETI research through print and broadcast media via our SETI Thursday column, popular articles, and science-based television.
We're in classrooms across the nation. Institute scientists are co-authors of college-level textbooks: Life in the Universe, a national best-seller for introductory astrobiology, and Perspectives on Astronomy, a widely adopted text for introductory astronomy.
All new ideas must first have some preliminary research that is done pro-bono by whatever person/group is doing the research. They then must present their findings to another group whom will provide money (normally a grant) to do extensive research. The research is conducted, findings are found, data is presented to a group of peers. The peers see that it is legitimate. IT"S SCIENCE!
I’ve no doubt it’s been done that way since the concept of ID was first proposed, but not so much before that. I don’t believe it was ever done with abiogenesis 50 or more years ago, and I don’t believe it was done with the SETI institute. Can you show that the process you described above was carried out for abiogenesis? Or for the SETI institute — that might be easier for you to document since it’s much more confined and identifiable than the broad subject of abiogenesis. Can you show (with links) some information on just who the SETI institute provided its findings to, what research has been conducted, what findings have been found, who the group of peers were who accepted it, and who accepted their work for publication in science textbooks? (not a lot of detail, just some specific names, dates) If you can, I’ll concede the point, but it has to be more than just your opinionated, general statement.
Here's what ID wants: There is a hypothesis that life is too complex to occur naturally. Any study (ONE has been done....ONE) to substantiate the hypothesis is refuted and shown to be in errror. This is not a valid hypothesis. Start over, do more research. (hint: science seeks to prove itself WRONG. Not prove other shit wrong).
Today’s scientific community does not seek to prove Darwinism wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 8:09 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 9:02 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 158 of 177 (549792)
03-10-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Blue Jay
02-27-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements
Okay, let’s get this straight: you don’t know when abiogenesis was first taught in education curricula; and you don’t know when it became science, so you really don’t have anything authoritative to say on the chronology.
I don’t think anybody really does, and that in itself could be authoritative. I think it’s like the SETI institute — it just effortlessly blended into science. It wasn’t a challenge to godless naturalism, so it got an automatic pass. All the while not having to meet criteria that ID is constantly challenged to meet. (falsifiability, uselfulness, repeatability) If I'm wrong, show me. I can't prove that something doesn't exist - you can show I'm wrong by proving that it does exist.
I am skeptical that abiogenesis was widely taught in science classes before the 1950’s, and I am skeptical that it was accepted in science as an authoritatively demonstrated reality before then.
I agree that it probably wasn’t, but the reason wasn’t because it’s more tenable today, it’s because the morality filter of those past generations didn’t allow it. The 1947 Supreme Court decision that separated church and state for the first time probably had bearing on it.
I request that you support this claim of yours by showing us a mainstream textbook, curriculum, statement from a relevant scientific society or some other evidence that abiogenesis indeed became science before it was supported with experimental results.
How is it supported with experimental results today? It’s not even a theory yet. To show you that evidence, I’d have to know the exact date when abiogenesis became science. Does anybody really know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2010 11:08 PM Blue Jay has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 159 of 177 (549794)
03-10-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluescat48
02-27-2010 11:19 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Nothing is treated as absolute truth in science.
The scientific community claims many things as scientific facts. Evolution is called a fact. I suppose in some cases it can be claimed that nothing is treated as absolute truth in science, but my point is/was that nothing else comes close to being able to challenge scientific claims, in making social decisions.
Things like tradition and morals (religion) were able to do it in the past, but not so much today, and in some cases it has a price. (financial and political)
If there was anything that was considered absolute truth, then the research into that study would cease, and would then be as religion that is dogma.
Public research involving a disproof of Darwinism HAS CEASED. ALL scientific study of it today only seeks to support/strengthen it, nothing more. It is dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2010 11:19 PM bluescat48 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 161 of 177 (549798)
03-10-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Coyote
02-28-2010 1:22 AM


Re: Theistic science?
From the Wedge Document:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
And just how can you justify calling this nonsense science? It would seem to be the exact opposite of science.
It’s a reaction to the science (nonsense) of Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Daniel Dennett, William Provine, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, many others. I borrowed a biology textbook from the 15 year old son of a friend of mine, (author, Kenneth Miller, a Christian, har) Science that disregards religion completely is what students are being taught. Miller writes it exactly the same way an atheist would. He doesn’t avoid religion as he should, he makes positive assertions about nature (including abiogenesis) that contradict it.
And how would you plan to enforce this "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions?" A theocracy? The Inquisition? Censorship of all sciences that do not conform to some shaman's ideas?
There is no proposal to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview by enforcement, the proposal is to reverse it by open inquiry. You won't find a proposal for "force" anywhere in ID, including even the Wedge Document. If church and state are separated, atheism and state also should be separated.
Sorry, not going to happen. For your enlightenment look up...The Enlightenment. It means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans. After thousands of years we are finally free to tell them to go jump.
The time has come to tell Dawkins, Miller, and countless others to go jump.
Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2010 1:22 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:10 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 162 of 177 (549800)
03-10-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by hooah212002
02-28-2010 1:29 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
What, exactly, are Atheists beliefs? You do know that atheists are called as such because they don't believe in god, right? The term "atheists beliefs" is somewhat oxymoronic.
For atheists to have an absence of beliefs, they sure do write a lot of books about that absence. It’s a political worldview, often with specific political beliefs. It’s relevant to the first amendment, as I showed in message # 131. The right to practice religion is protected, and the right to establish religion is prohibited. Courts have traditionally held that the right to practice atheism is equally as protected as is the right to practice religion, so it follows that a prohibition of an establishment of atheism is equally as important as the prohibition of the establishment of religion. Public educational establishment of abiogenesis is a public establishment of atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 02-28-2010 1:29 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 10:06 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 163 of 177 (549802)
03-10-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by PaulK
02-28-2010 4:40 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
ID researchers have the same access to grants as anyone else. All they have to do is to demonstrate the merit and the value of their work to the same standards.
ID research doesn’t have the same establishment in public universities as does naturalism. The political separation of church and state diminishes its access to public grants.
It can't easily demonstrate its merit while simultaneously warding off powerful, emotional claims that it's nothing but religion.
Acceptance in the scientific community is earned, not just given. In fact it is earned by producing worthwhile research so on this count you are clearly putting the cart before the horse.
I’d like to know the date, and research established on that date, when abiogenesis was first accepted as science by the scientific community. I don’t think you’ll be able to produce it, because no one really has that information. Its acceptance was automatic, and no one knows when that was.
The ID movement has the same means of getting exposure to students as any other idea in the same situation. If it wants to be treated like mainstream science it has to earn that place. Which again comes down to actually doing the research.
Again, it's hard to forward the talk of research while defending against the screams of religious accusations.
Abiogenesis research has no "free pass" from legal challenges. So I don't know what you are talking about there.
So you can give me examples of when abiogenesis status as science was challenged in court?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2010 4:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2010 2:45 AM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 164 of 177 (549804)
03-10-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
02-28-2010 6:10 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Your problem isn't with abiogenesis but with science. You can't single out abiogenesis for being naturalistic because all of science is naturalistic, and abiogenesis is held to the same requirements of falsifiability as all the rest of science.
Maybe we’re getting somewhere, you’re right, my problem IS with science, because it’s controlled by atheists! They don’t even seem to bother to separate the vast differences between atheistic speculation of billions of years ago vs the here-and-now applications of scientific material processes. If any here-and-now scientific applications had the gaps that abiogenesis has, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything — it certainly couldn’t be considered science.
If you want to discuss naturalism and falsifiability in science, and/or its supposed air of superiority, then I suggest you take the discussion to one of the Is It Science? threads, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
Why is the exact location of a discussion within forums all that important?
Of course you can, but in threads where it would be on-topic. This thread's about abiogenesis.
This thread was started by me, and its location is where the administration put it. My posts have followed my opening post, combined with the responses to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 02-28-2010 6:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 03-11-2010 6:42 AM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 165 of 177 (549806)
03-10-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by RAZD
02-28-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
The difference here is that we had an agreed definition to work by, you noted that abiogenesis fit that definition as science, but have failed to demonstrate that ID can fit it.
I noted that abiogenesis fit a definition as science? Where did I do that?
I've also showed that this definition was used prior to Darwin and his theory of descent with modification, and that the definition has not changed to make ID unacceptable. ID doesn't meet the 1828 definition of science as noted in Message 125:
The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science (my bold for emphasis):
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
________________________________________
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
...
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
...
________________________________________
Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.
Abiogenesis would fit that definition, ID would not.
If we can include natural philosophy that forcefully excludes the supernatural (atheism) art, agriculture, navigation, arts, painting, sculpture, why can’t we include mathematical challenges to Darwinism? Why is it religious to challenge Darwinism to the concept of irreducible complexity?
RAZD writes:
marc9000 writes:
You largely disregarded an entire link I provided earlier about the gaps and faith in abiogenesis simply because the author didn’t define evolution in an exact way that you agreed with. Why would you blame me, or any creationist/ID proponent for disregarding most of what you (or any evolutionist/naturalist) say concerning science if you refuse to concede proven points about double standards in entrance requirements in the scientific community?
I disregarded it because it was full of misinformation, beginning at the start. My experience has been that starting with misinformation does not lead to valid conclusions. It's a logic thing.
I agree, that’s why the misinformation that life can spontaneously spring from non life could very well not lead to valid conclusions.
If your point was really valid, you would not need a website with misinformation to demonstrate it.
People using a source to make a point about something often disregard what others may perceive as misinformation. What do you think about ID opponents constantly associating it with Biblical events? I haven’t necessarily seen you do it, but I’ve never noticed you criticizing anyone for doing it.
If you think it has something relevant to say then pick out the point you think is relevant and present it.
It had plenty of points that were relevant, but it’s easy to see that the godless scientific community can oppose anything it wants, simply by going down a different path, and loading it with complexities that nothing outside the publicly established realm can hope to compete with, especially while it's defending itself against something else, something political.
Don't you find it rather dishonest for ID to claim this as a prediction when it is based on repeating what was published in a scientific journal by actual scientists doing actual science?
No, not at all. Without the presence of at least a few non-atheist scientists, maybe it wouldn’t have appeared in a scientific journal at all, or maybe it wouldn’t have been noted as prominently as it should have.
Curious how abiogenesis became a science by doing science, but ID has failed to do so.
I’d like to see some documentation on that. I’d like to see the date when abiogenesis was declared to be science, and what science it had done to gain that status.
Your curiousity should diminish when you add up the instances when abiogenesis was on the receiving end of an ACLU lawsuit, vs that of the ID community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2010 11:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 166 of 177 (549808)
03-10-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
02-28-2010 6:30 PM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
quote:
The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.[18][19] Nevertheless, Biever was able to discover that The Biologic Institute is working on "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and computational biology.[4]
It’s understandable that how ID research is released is something that must be done very carefully, considering the emotion and personal attacks by the scientific community over Michael Behe’s work, as well as Dembski’s mathematical applications concerning probabilities in biology. The scientific community’s success in shouting down ID so far has been to declare it religion, and disregard it without addressing the scientific challenges it provides to naturalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2010 6:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 169 of 177 (549814)
03-10-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by hooah212002
03-10-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
What are you two on about with SETI? What is your gripe with it? Are you afraid we just might not be alone? Will that make us not-so-special?
My gripe is that it has a free pass to be loaded into biology textbooks for school students, and doesn't get sued by the ACLU.
Did you bother looking? Here is a start: Peer Reviewed Journal Publications
and Other Recent Articles on The Society for Planetary SETI Researchp
I'll have to check that out when I have more time. I was just going by the basics of their website, a lot of inquiry for communications from outer space, with NO results yet.
First, show me a science textbook that "teaches" SETI. Again, you astoundedly have no clue as to what SETI is, apparently.
Here's what it said in the link I just provided you;
quote:
We're in classrooms across the nation. Institute scientists are co-authors of college-level textbooks:
Did you simply miss that, or are you goalpost moving?
That's because "Darwinism" is a buzz word for creo-tards. You will not find anyone trying to prove "Newtonism" wrong either, or "Einsteinism".
It's a descriptive word for godless, purposeless random mutation and natural selection. How about if I say the scientific community does not seek to prove random mutation and natural selection wrong? Or, more on topic, that the scientific community does not seek to prove atheistic abiogenesis wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 9:02 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 10:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 171 of 177 (549821)
03-10-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by hooah212002
03-10-2010 10:06 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
How does one "practice atheism"? Is there an atheist church I don't yet know about? An atheist bible? Man, I really am out of the loop here.
You very well may be - check out some best sellers of the past few decades, some will be found in this list. (this is just a partial list)
*Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
*The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
*The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
*Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
*The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
*Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
*Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
*The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
*The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
*Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
*The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
*God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
*God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
*50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
*Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins - 2008
You could do some internet searches on "atheism" too, plenty of organization, plenty of solicitations for your donations to help them separate church and state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 10:06 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 11:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 172 of 177 (549823)
03-10-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Coyote
03-10-2010 10:10 PM


Re: Theistic science?
So the facts that science is turning up don't confirm your particular religious beliefs, and even contradict them, eh?
They're not turning up facts, they're speculating on things like godless abiogenesis. Atheist philosophy, nothing more.
So rather than questioning your beliefs, you want science and science books to suppress those facts? Is that what you are asking for? You want science suppressed for the convenience your personal whims and beliefs?
I want atheist speculation suppressed, to restore the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Better get your pitchfork and torch because that's the era your longing for, when religion ruled and heretics were burned at the stake. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason.
There have been societies in the past where militant atheism ruled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:10 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024