Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,252 Year: 5,509/9,624 Month: 534/323 Week: 31/143 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 304 (244314)
09-17-2005 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
09-15-2005 12:29 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
One thing struck me from the "Schmevolution Panel" where Jon asked Dembski about the scrotum design - Dembski said that {not all things need to have been designed}(paraphrased).
This denies testability of any aspect of ID, for every item where evolution is shown to be sufficient mechanism is just another instance where design was not needed.
The ultimate moving goal-posts, because it is automatic.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 09-15-2005 12:29 PM Modulous has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 304 (245057)
09-19-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Warren
09-19-2005 2:26 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Care to tell us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect the cell was designed?
Evidence that features from two (or more) different cells were combined into a "new, improved" version of a specific feature.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Warren, posted 09-19-2005 2:26 PM Warren has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 304 (245350)
09-20-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Warren
09-19-2005 2:26 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Care to tell us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect the cell was designed?
I repeat,
Evidence that features from two (or more) different cells were combined into a "new, improved" version of a specific feature.
Or, in other words, evidence of real world actual design processes being employed in the design of species.
This particular example would be any single connection between any two branches of the evolutionary tree of all life, and further, this particular example is one of the most common features of good design: taking what works best from a number of solutions and combining them into an improved solution.
An example of this would be an octopus type eye appearing in a human, using muscles to move the retina in and out for focus and doing away with the need for glasses.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*20*2005 08:40 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Warren, posted 09-19-2005 2:26 PM Warren has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 304 (245353)
09-20-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Warren
09-20-2005 5:37 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
The question is not what you can't test and why or whatever other dodge is flavor du jour
the question is what you can test.
How do you test the validity of the ID concept?
How can it be falsified?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Warren, posted 09-20-2005 5:37 PM Warren has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 137 of 304 (309679)
05-06-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by jaywill
05-06-2006 12:45 PM


Re: N+1 jawbones
http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
Pre Therapsid Reptile -- 1 jaw hinge, multiple jaw bones, 1 earbone
Therapsid (cynodont Probainognathus) -- 2 jaw hinges, Reptile>Mammal
Therapsid (ictidosaurian Diarthrognathus) -- 2 jaw hinges, Mammal>Reptile
Post Therapsid Mammal -- 1 jaw hinge, 1 jaw bone, multiple ear bones
The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian ...
In a slightly later group, known as the ictidosaurians, the mammalian part of the double jaw joint seen in Probainognathus was strengthened, while the old reptilian part was beginning to become reduced in size. ...
... The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years. Since the determining characteristic of a mammal in the fossil record is the structure of the jaw bone and joint, all of the therapsids up to the Morganucodonts are classified as reptiles, and all those after that are considered to be mammals.
Would that be evolution or the reverse of evolution? Would that be a kind of degeneration yet still performing the useful function?
Should the loss of the hinge be considered evolution or degeneration?
Each stage is evolution.
By comparing 'evolution' to 'degeneration' you are making a mistaken and unfounded equation of 'evolution' to 'progress' -- evolution can make what we view as 'progressive' or 'regressive' changes, but the valuation of the change as either is a product of our valuation and does not have any relationship to the change or the cause of the change.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:45 PM jaywill has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 304 (309759)
05-06-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jaywill
05-05-2006 3:08 PM


What IC means and what it doesn't.
A system with N functional parts can only do the job it is suppose to do with N functional parts. If you reduce one of the parts from the system, say N-1 functional parts, the system simply cannot perform its function.
For what it is worth I fully agree with this definition of "Irreducible Complexity" ("IC"). The same system with N+1 functional parts is not IC because you can remove the +1 part and still function, you cannot remove any more without lose of the specific function used to define the ICness of the N parts.
I never really got the idea that really really complex means irreducibly complex.
And there is absolutely no reason for an IC system to be very complex, it could be as simple a system as N=2. Take away either part and the function ceases to happen: IC by definition.
The problem is that such a two part ({A}+{B}) system can easily evolve, in fact {'FL' says 'almost' while 'BL' says 'absolutely'} every function starts this way.
Have more 'complex' IC systems evolved that we know of? Well first we need to define 'complex' ...
We could define it as the number of interactions between the parts necessary to achieve the function (so the complexity is dependent on the number of parts and the number of interactions - a three part function where {A} interacts with both {B} and {C} and {B} interacts with {C} thus has 3 'complexities', while a function where {A} interacts with {B} which then interacts with {C} only has 2 'complexities').
By this definition the above {A} + {B} system only has a 'complexity' of 1.
Ken Miller, "A True Acid Test", says:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose.
An IC system with 1 part removed. Ceased to function.
Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present.
Two different parts evolved to replace the lost function.
Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
A third part evolved to allow the other two to operate.
All well and good, eh? Just evolving new parts to replace damaged parts ... just adding to the system eh?
... once the (beta-galactosidase enzyme) gene was deleted, three components had to evolve to replace its function: First, a new galactosidase enzyme, second, a new lactose-sensitive control region, and third, a new way to switch on the lac permease gene.
Well here's the kicker:
Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:
(1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
(2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
(3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease
Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system.
The new system is by definition an IC (sub)system.
Now this may seem to be only an {A}+({B}+{C}) system (complexity = 2) but it is only part of the system, because the function is to metabolize the sugar lactose.
Logically the function could involve any number of parts {N} (minimum 'complexity' = N-1 for a linear process), and the loss of one part can be replace by the evolution of new part(s).
The new system may need more parts than the original (here we have N-1+3 = N+2) ... so it may actually be more 'complex' afterwards ... obviously, then, increased 'complexity' is not a marker for excluding evolution from the process.
Later evolution may replace other parts with fewer parts ... part {Q} could replace parts {J} and {G} ... or replace single parts (damaged by other means) with additional increased numbers of parts.
The number of parts necessary for the function is not critical to the organism, what is critical is that the function be performed. Once that criteria is met then the organism is free to evolve methods to reduce the 'complexity' (ie use less resources for the same viability), and when this happens then natural selection would operate to the advantage of the reduced system over the more 'complex' one.
One can thus argue that 'IC' is a necessary outcome of natural selection on organisms with complex functions, as it would operate to remove any unnecessary parts from the functionality.
What does this all mean?
(1) That IC systems are not indicative of non-evolutionary process, rather they should be frequently observed and occurring often in evolved organisms.
(2) That IC is invalidated as a marker of "intelligent design" ("ID") -- because any number of any level of 'complexity' IC systems can freely and easily evolve.
(3) That anyone still using IC to promote ID is not paying attention.


Note, above we have the statement:
"The same system with N+1 functional parts is not IC because you can remove the +1 part and still function, you cannot remove any more without lose of the specific function used to define the ICness of the N parts."
What is interesting is that once you phrase it like this you raise the possibility that adding a new part to function {X} and then removing a different part still leaves you with functionality -- it may be {X} and it may be {Y}.
It is also possible that you could add part {Q} and remove parts {J} and {G} for the same functionality (it may be {X} and it may be {Y}), thus simplifying the 'complexity' but arriving at another 'IC' conundrum of the ID logical fallacy of incredulity: "Gosh, how could that happen naturally"...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jaywill, posted 05-05-2006 3:08 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by inkorrekt, posted 05-10-2006 7:50 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 146 of 304 (311834)
05-14-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by inkorrekt
05-10-2006 7:50 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
So, we both agree that the regulatory mechanisms for the beta-galactosidase gene, are complex.
Actually I made a definition of "complex" in a way that could be measured, then used it, and then showed that it was irrelevant to the issue.
The function is what is important and now how many parts are needed to accomplish the function. If the function is done with 2 or 200 parts the organism still benefits from the function.
Of course fewer parts is more efficient, and natural selection would tend to pick more efficient alternatives to do the same function -- and thus natural selection would tend to select for ones where extraneous parts have been removed, tending to make final solutions meet the definition of "irreducible complexity" ...
... disregarding the fact that "complexity" is meaningless. I could just as easily say "irreducible arrangement" and be much closer to a valid description.
This among other observations is a clear evidence for ID.
No, it is clear evidence of evolution because that is what was observed.
This is one hard core solid fact about science: when a concept is invalidated it has been proven to be false.
This experiment is a total, complete invalidation of the concept that "irreducible complexity" is 'evidence' for "ID" and no amount of denial changes that fact -- "IC" is not evidence for "ID" because "IC" evolves naturally and easily.
Thus "IC" as evidence for "ID" is a falsified concept.
Thus this cannot be evidence for "ID" -- it is logically impossible.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by inkorrekt, posted 05-10-2006 7:50 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ohnhai, posted 05-15-2006 9:11 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 304 (312607)
05-16-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by ohnhai
05-15-2006 9:11 AM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Quite the opposite infact.
Not sure I can go that far.
Lets break it down ...
The "IC=ID" argument:
(1)if {A} then {B}
(2) if {B} then {C}
where {A} = {IC} is NOT {E}
and {B} = {something else happened}
and {C} = {godidit} (whispered very quietly)
The problem is we have NOT{A}, and thus can make no conclusions about {B}.
Logically {C} is now an unfounded (logically false) conclusion, but not impossible either.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ohnhai, posted 05-15-2006 9:11 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ohnhai, posted 05-17-2006 10:28 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 153 of 304 (312972)
05-17-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ohnhai
05-17-2006 10:28 AM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
ohnhai writes:
The whole crux of the {ID} argument is that {ID} is defined as ”{IC} = ~{E}’ ...{ID} has to be false.
Nope. {ID} is defined as {evidence of design} and {IC} was defined as {Not{E} therefore a piece of evidence of design}. Not{IC} does not equal Not{ID}. You have falsified that {IC} implies {ID}, that is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ohnhai, posted 05-17-2006 10:28 AM ohnhai has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 161 of 304 (314015)
05-20-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by inkorrekt
05-20-2006 2:53 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
If no intelligence is required, why no new forms of life have emerged? Please do not repeat that new forms have been identified. I am yet to see them.
In otherwords you remain ignorant because you specifically refused to investigate when it was pointed out previously that new forms have been identified.
You have yet to see them because you have yet to look.
Enjoy - they say ignorance is bliss.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by inkorrekt, posted 05-20-2006 2:53 PM inkorrekt has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 304 (314222)
05-21-2006 8:58 PM


To sum up the thread to date ... and direct it back on topic?
So far the only thing testable that has come out of ID that I am aware of, is the concept of Irreducible Complexitity (IC).
The idea was that {something} can be composed of parts that cannot function with any parts missing (Irreducible) and where each part is fully developed (this bears some relationship to 'Complexity' apparently, but the link has yet to be defined) in such a way that it cannot evolve and then be drafted into the IC system.
The test is that if such a system cannot evolve naturally, that then there must have been some "assistance" (whether alien or superalien)
There has been an IC system observed to evolve naturally, thus evolution can explain the development if IC systems, and the "test" has failed.
Half way to 300 and still no real test for ID. Doesn't look good for a purportedly scientific concept.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ikabod, posted 05-22-2006 10:48 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 304 (314464)
05-22-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by ikabod
05-22-2006 10:48 AM


Re: To sum up the thread to date ... and direct it back on topic?
(1) {God(s)}. - ALL HAIL MIGHTY CROCTHOR! GOD OF BEER, PEANUTS AND TOILET PAPER.
... where they/he/she/its own agenda they wish to hide from us .. thus no way to prove / disprove .. as all evidence is tainted
I'd need to break this down into two subgroups:
(1a) {GOD} singular. - has it's own agenda, possibly hiding in plain sight: everything you see is some aspect of {(it)}, or having done enough here gone off to do other great things elsewhere, or built the universe, is totally uninterested in bacteria infesting some planets, etc. Logically, there are endless streams of concepts ...
(1b) {GODS} multiple. - the big guns could be elsewhere doing the big picture things, leaving little sprites and half-gods to finish up around the edges, sometimes so bad a complete re-do is required. Gods having wars of dominance with lots of debris left over. Logically, there are endless streams of concepts ...
There is no way of testing any of these concepts, short of the appearance of a god willing to demonstrate {(its)} abilities, so pondering them may be entertaining, but not likely to be productive.
(2) {Alien(s)}. - could be just one, killed by accident on way home. and number of possibilities.
therefore they should be some clear clues
This of course is the same problem with SETI. How many years have we been broadcasting in analog radio waves? Now going digital ... what is the next form of communication? Cable? Laser satellites? We have the technological capability to stop wasting energy broadcasting wasted broadband. With the rise in energy costs, we may soon see real effort to stop wasting energy broadcasting wasted broadband.
Here is another take on it Lungfish, by David Brin (SciFi)
.. and where did the aliens come from any way if they where not ID then it means ID is not the real origin.
Yep, this just pushes the question back a {LIFE} generation, and seeing as life took at least 3.5 billion years old, the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, WE have not attained the ability to ID life elsewhere (yet), and the early universe did not have the necessary elements (first stars had only Hydrogen, Helium, and (maybe) Lithium, and the rest of the elements didn't start to be available until they had been manufactured inside stars and then those stars exploded (nova \ supernova) to distribute them ... and then time for those elements to coalesce into planets around a new star ...
You don't have a lot of time for multiple generations.
(3) {btw}
.. why includ virus/harmfull bacteria .. why not have a better regulated planet ????
Maybe that's part of the inscrutable plan. Maybe it is better regulated on the mainstream planets of created life, we're out in the boonies.
(4) {mudball prodded with stick}
... where are the watchers ??
Watching. Careful not to influence the experiment with any accidental input.
...dont you think they would have stepped in to save us from our selves .. or are they not moral .?
How many scientists watch petrie dishes of bacteria die out completely without a moral or any other qualm at all.
(5) {Purpose}
... why would you , for what reason .??
Endless entertainment. What can be more entertaining than a troop of monkeys presuming to have big moral discussions or coming to ridiculous conclusions about their personal and individual importance in the grand scope of the universe?
Of course ... NONE of this is testable (at least without new evidence, like a pipette in the sky)
it feel we must admit for ID to work and to have a reason we are talking about a god(s) it terms of power (ETC)
At least according to our understanding of life, the universe, and everything (by D.N.A.)
question is which one(s) ...................
Why? if god(s) unknowable, then it doesn't matter which one, because you can't know. If god(s) knowable, then it becomes self evident, and you no longer need to wonder.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ikabod, posted 05-22-2006 10:48 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by MangyTiger, posted 05-23-2006 6:14 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 170 by ikabod, posted 05-24-2006 3:29 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 173 of 304 (314819)
05-24-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Tusko
05-24-2006 4:19 AM


Would it in fact just look like standard scientific theory, devoid of deities, or ...
Not devoid of deities, agnostic on deities. And that's the best you would end up with in ID. If you take it to it's logical conclusion, what you end up with is a philosophic viewpoint that there may be gods or there may be aliens but until we know that, the best we can do is use science to the fullest capability to understand the universe and everything in it the way it is and not try to force it into what we want it to be.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Tusko, posted 05-24-2006 4:19 AM Tusko has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 174 of 304 (314821)
05-24-2006 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by ikabod
05-24-2006 3:29 AM


Re: To sum up the thread to date ... and direct it back on topic?
hmmm me thinks your nearly as big a loon as me is .....
or bigger.
so you would keep a beacon going , im sure we will ..
And have no worries about a destructive alien race? "Hey bullies, here we are, bring it on" -- that sure worked well last time I heard it ...
if scientist found a sentient bactrai which could communicate ...
Only IF she was listening. How long has it taken for the human race to even consider other species communicating sufficiently intelligent content to be considered having a conversation?
And bacteria do communicate. It just takes too long for a conversation for people to follow it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : fixed html link

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ikabod, posted 05-24-2006 3:29 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ikabod, posted 05-24-2006 9:14 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 176 of 304 (314964)
05-24-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ikabod
05-24-2006 9:14 AM


Re: To sum up the thread to date ... and direct it back on topic?
You have to practice?
... we would shut down all radio/ electrical devices now .
You haven't tried to use federal money to build a beacon, or tried to organize a non-profit group to build it, so you haven't really attracted the notice of the xenophobes to start campaigning against it. Like Pat Robertson.
... but the IDer(s) have had the had from the day they started it all .. and they must have been a bit more advanced compared to us at that point anyway so should be able to spot a wailing brat like the human race ...
You are making the logical error of thinking that we are the reason for the design job. And that the job is anywhere near finished.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ikabod, posted 05-24-2006 9:14 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ikabod, posted 05-25-2006 3:06 AM RAZD 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