Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your reason for accepting evolution
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 111 (432202)
11-04-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
11-04-2007 1:44 PM


Re: Predictions
Yeah. The only thing I've heard about creationists and Mt. St. Helens is how the formation of a gulley through unconsolidated volcanic ash somehow shows how the Grand Canyon could be dug down through a mile of sandstone.
On the other hand, I did hear one person claim that the tidal wave that occurred a few years ago in Asia showed that hydrological sorting works.
I was thinking myself that Beretta got a couple of different arguments mixed up.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2007 1:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 32 of 111 (432284)
11-05-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Annafan
10-31-2007 9:49 AM


it has a lot to do with usefulness
We have a lot of use for the observable facts of mutation and natural selection but none whatsoever for the greater faith-based extrapolation that constitutes a large portion of what evolution entails.
Up until the 1800's the generally held belief was that the sedimentary rock layers right across the earth represented the record of mass death from Noah's flood.
Evolution was offered as a more palatable theory for all those billions of dead things found buried all over the planet.
Mankind always grabs at any opportunity to forget God - it is not at all surprising that evolution was accepted with the alacrity that it was.The Bible says that in the end times, man will be 'willfully ignorant' (ie. stupid on purpose) of the deluge of Noah "that the world that once was, being overflowed by water, perished." (2Peter somewhere).
As a matter of interest, if evolution happened and not intelligent creation according to a plan then why do all earth's creatures have 2 eyes. Evolutionists would no doubt say "survival!Two eyes are better than one." But if two eyes are better than one, why stop there -why not 7 or 8? I could do with a couple in the back of my head. Whats this symmetry thing?
Also, is it conceivable that our intellect is purely the result of random chemical interactions or is it possible that a supreme mind created our minds to communicate rationally with Him?
If a banana evolved from the same single-celled ancestor as the tiger, what about survival? Is it possible that the banana was created for us to eat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Annafan, posted 10-31-2007 9:49 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DrJones*, posted 11-05-2007 3:08 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2007 3:12 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 11-05-2007 9:51 AM Beretta has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 33 of 111 (432292)
11-05-2007 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Beretta
11-05-2007 2:41 AM


Up until the 1800's the generally held belief was that the sedimentary rock layers right across the earth represented the record of mass death from Noah's flood.
And it was Christian geologists trying to prove this idea who finally had to conclude that it was false.
As a matter of interest, if evolution happened and not intelligent creation according to a plan then why do all earth's creatures have 2 eyes.
Well this is just nonsense. Some creatures have no eyes, some have more than 2. Have you ever heard of spiders?, they (usually) have 8 eyes.
But if two eyes are better than one, why stop there -why not 7 or 8?
Evolution is not about being The Best, it's about being good enough. If there are no enviromental factors that would make it advantageous to have more than two eyes then there is no reason that 2 eyed organisms would be selected against.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 2:41 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:26 AM DrJones* has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 111 (432295)
11-05-2007 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Beretta
11-05-2007 2:41 AM


We have a lot of use for the observable facts of mutation and natural selection but none whatsoever for the greater faith-based extrapolation that constitutes a large portion of what evolution entails.
Just as we have "no use" for the "greater faith-based extrapolation" that the Roman Empire existed.
No, accurate knowledge of the past is not always useful. But it's interesting.
Up until the 1800's the generally held belief was that the sedimentary rock layers right across the earth represented the record of mass death from Noah's flood.
Evolution was offered as a more palatable theory for all those billions of dead things found buried all over the planet.
But again, this is stuff you've made up. Geologists had rejected the flood model long before Darwin published the theory of evolution. They did so not because they were "evolutionists", but because they'd looked at the rocks.
Will you please stop making stuff up and then asserting it without a shred of evidence.
As a matter of interest, if evolution happened and not intelligent creation according to a plan then why do all earth's creatures have 2 eyes.
They don't. This is something else you made up. Some creatures have no eyes, spiders usually have eight, scallops can have over a hundred ...
Why didn't you try to find out if what you were saying was true before you said it? These are basic biological facts, you just have to count the eyes.
Evolutionists would no doubt say "survival!Two eyes are better than one." But if two eyes are better than one, why stop there -why not 7 or 8? I could do with a couple in the back of my head.
Ah yes, the Argument From Undesign. This is one of my top 10 favorite creationist arguments.
You are saying that evolution ought to produce good results, but what we have is a rather poor result. We don't have enough eyes.
But remember, you are meant to be arguing in favor of the hypothesis that we were designed by a perfect, all-knowing, all-wise God. Who, according to you, gave us too few eyes.
Shouldn't the mighty power of God have given us the right number of eyes?
Also, is it conceivable that our intellect is purely the result of random chemical interactions ...
It's conceivable that mutation and selection produced our intellect, since (1) there are variations in intelligence (2) intelligence can be useful.
If a banana evolved from the same single-celled ancestor as the tiger, what about survival?
What about it?
You claimed to have facts that would blow away evolution. It appears that what you mostly have is incoherent questions.
Is it possible that the banana was created for us to eat?
The bananas that we eat are a product of artificial selection acting on random mutation. Humans bred them to be edible. So in a sense, it is not just possible, but certain, that "the banana was created for us to eat". By us.
This is another fact that passed you by. All our domesticated plants and animals have been domesticated. By us.
Again, I have to wonder why you came to lecture people about biology without bothering to learn a few basic facts about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 2:41 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 35 of 111 (432296)
11-05-2007 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by bluescat48
10-31-2007 3:03 PM


Basically I accept evolution because evolution over 3.8 billion years makes much more sense that a 6 day creation, 6000 years ago
You accept it most likely for the same reason so many do -it's standard fare, global belief system since God apparently died and is no longer relevant.
Man has become so much cleverer than his creator it is no wonder his active imagination has invented an entire new story to replace HIS story. It all happened before we were around but we nonetheless know better.If the evidence fits HIS story, it's worth checking out lest you be on the wrong plane going nowhere.
Not too many evolutionary scientists made it onto the ark I believe -they knew better than their creator and refused the warnings sent to them because they were so busy 'doing their own thing' having 'their own truth' and believing the consensus opinion about Noah and his ravings about a flood coming.
Too many people do not want to believe God.
the evolution model is based on scientific experimentation together with fossils
The evolution model is based more on "there is no God but we are here so how did we get here?" OR "We believe in God but want to have latitude in our interpretations so better not to believe what He said, better to decide what He meant and invent our own new story of evolution that believers and non-believers can go for."
Fossils are just billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the world.
If your dog is buried at a higher level than someone else's dog, it does not necessarily mean that the other person's dog had to have evolved into yours because of their similarities. There's also no proof or reason to believe that the porcupine buried even lower than the other dog evolved into the original dog.
Maybe that porcupine never had any kids. Maybe, if it did, it just had porcupine children just like every porcupine today.No reason to believe that it eventually gave birth to a mutant that gave rise to that early dog. All we really know is that they all died.
Evolution reads too much into the fossils because evolutionists have already been brainwashed into believing in the concept of evolution over millions of years.
creation is a belief based on ideas created by men
Not so. Evolution is an idea based on the words of men.
Creation is a belief based on a supernatural book written through men inspired by God.God promises all over the Bible to preserve His word for all generations so that they will know and not be ignorant of what has happened.(The dead sea scrolls substantiate that)
ignorant to the basic laws of physics
They didn't need to be well -versed in the basic laws of physics, they just had to write it down and whatever God inspired them to say would be consistent with the laws of physics except, of course, where he said a miracle occurred. God made those laws of physics and He can do what He wants when He wants.It is only us creations that are subject to those laws.The book was written for stupid man not only to show us how intellectually superior God is but also to be able to be understood by the simplest of men so that "they are without excuse."
According to the Bible, man's biggest problem has always been that he imagines himself to be cleverer than his creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2007 3:03 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by iceage, posted 11-05-2007 3:36 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2007 3:51 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 43 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 8:49 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 12:31 PM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 36 of 111 (432298)
11-05-2007 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by DrJones*
11-05-2007 3:08 AM


Spiders!
And it was Christian geologists trying to prove this idea who finally had to conclude that it was false.
Not the ones I have read about but yes some probably did decide it was false but that would be usual since so many clergy are more dependant on the words of men and their approval than the Word of God and its accuracy.
Some creatures have no eyes, some have more than 2.
Sorry you are right about that -forgot the spiders but still I think that man would have been better off with eyes in the back of his head (for survival)and a tail would also have helped.
there is no reason that 2 eyed organisms would be selected against
I don't understand how we could have lost that tail -it would be so useful when your hands are full and you need to open the door and how did nature know that we needed to get two eyes rather than one and why didn't we naturally mutate a few more and those 4-eyed things get selected. These are all just plausible stories. I think we still need to run up trees to escape our enemies and a tail could be useful there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DrJones*, posted 11-05-2007 3:08 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by DrJones*, posted 11-05-2007 3:39 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 5:40 AM Beretta has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 37 of 111 (432299)
11-05-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:12 AM


Dishonest Debate Tactics
bluescat writes:
Basically I accept evolution because evolution over 3.8 billion years makes much more sense that a 6 day creation, 6000 years ago
Baretta writes:
You accept it most likely for the same reason so many do -it's standard fare, global belief system since God apparently died and is no longer relevant.
Standard creationist dishonest debate technique.
No where in the above statement by Bluecat did he imply that "God apparently died". You are assuming a position well beyond what was stated. Maybe his God is whole lot bigger than yours and he doesn't have to constrain God to a timespan that humans can understand.
Baretta writes:
Man has become so much cleverer than his creator it is no wonder his active imagination has invented an entire new story to replace HIS story.
Again no where does Bluecat indicate that Man is cleverer than his creator.
Trying being honest and fair in you discussions.
Beretta writes:
It all happened before we were around but we nonetheless know better.
Yes the evidence is there if you look. Evidently your world view requires man to be front and center. Perhaps this quote by Richard Francis Burton might be appropriate here:
quote:
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:12 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 2:51 AM iceage has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 38 of 111 (432300)
11-05-2007 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:26 AM


Re: Spiders!
how did nature know that we needed to get two eyes rather than one
Nature knows nothing, nature is not a sentient entity. At some point in the evolution of some animals 2 eyes became more advantageous than 1.
I don't understand how we could have lost that tail
Random mutation and natural selection.
why didn't we naturally mutate a few more and those 4-eyed things get selected.
Because there were no enviromental factors selecting out non-4 eyed humans.
I think we still need to run up trees to escape our enemies and a tail could be useful there
Except humans have big juicy delicious brains that allow us to create and use technology to fight, scare off or avoid our enemies.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:26 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 111 (432302)
11-05-2007 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:12 AM


You accept it most likely for the same reason so many do -it's standard fare, global belief system since God apparently died and is no longer relevant.
That's an interesting fantasy you have about your opponents.
As with all your other untruths, you don't have a scrap of evidence for it. YOu just say it and expect us to believe it.
But it's bollocks.
The reason that people who know about biology disagre with you about biology must be apparent by now to everyone reading this thread --- except possibly you. It's because we know about biology and you don't.
The evolution model is based more on "there is no God but we are here so how did we get here?" OR "We believe in God but want to have latitude in our interpretations so better not to believe what He said, better to decide what He meant and invent our own new story of evolution that believers and non-believers can go for."
More stuff that you've made up.
Which is why the stuff that you've put in quotes is not real quotations of anything that anyone has actually said.
You had to make it up, 'cos it's not true.
If your dog is buried at a higher level than someone else's dog, it does not necessarily mean that the other person's dog had to have evolved into yours because of their similarities.
Which is, of course, why no-one has ever said so.
You rant and rave about paleotology and you've never learnt the first damn thing about it, have you?
Maybe that porcupine never had any kids. Maybe, if it did, it just had porcupine children just like every porcupine today.No reason to believe that it eventually gave birth to a mutant that gave rise to that early dog.
Which is, of course, why no-one has ever said any such thing.
You can't argue against what your opponents actually say, so you argue against crazy shit that you've made up in your head.
Evolution reads too much into the fossils because evolutionists have already been brainwashed into believing in the concept of evolution over millions of years.
Ah, you're back to fantasising about the motivations of your opponents.
Let me spell it out again. The reason that we disagree with you about biology is that we know about biology and you do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:12 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 40 of 111 (432305)
11-05-2007 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2007 3:12 AM


evidence and assertions
Geologists had rejected the flood model long before Darwin published the theory of evolution.
Not all only some - those that set us on the path to believing in evolution.There are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution.
Will you please stop making stuff up and then asserting it without a shred of evidence.
I assume that you are planning to follow up all these assertions of yours with evidence to convince me that you have proof and then watch me flounder in my mythological errors.Where is your proof???
just have to count the eyes.
Yes you're right. Am I going to be crucified for this? My apologies.
Still I think we should have mutated eyes in the back of our heads -it makes more sense for survival.So many things would do better if they had more eyes.
a perfect, all-knowing, all-wise God. Who, according to you, gave us too few eyes.
I believe God did it just right but I imagine evolution should have done something different if survival and not design is what drives the process.
It's conceivable that mutation and selection produced our intellect, since (1) there are variations in intelligence (2) intelligence can be useful.
Makes no sense to me that something so random made something so clever with no plan in mind. All those billions of neuronal connections with no electrician. Try that on a new house until you get it right. There has to be a designer.
What about it?
A banana appears to be grossly underprotected compared to its relative the tiger.Also the banana appears to be so well designed for eating -its shape, it's easy open skin -so many improbabilites compared to the assertion that it was designed with a plan - so that we could eat it.
You claimed to have facts that would blow away evolution
No I asked for your best evolutionary proof that would blow away any possibility that creation was feasible.
Humans bred them to be edible.All our domesticated plants and animals have been domesticated. By us.
But not created by us nor by random natural processes as far as I'm concerned.
came to lecture people about biology without bothering to learn a few basic facts about it.
I apologize for being apparently surrounded by those far cleverer than myself.I should take off to a less evolved type website and play with those less evolved humans.I know more than enough biology -if I make the odd error, will you forgive me and then I will forgive you when you do the same. I am here to learn -that is the main thing apart from dispensing wisdom...of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2007 3:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DrJones*, posted 11-05-2007 4:02 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 11-05-2007 4:16 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2007 10:55 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 11-05-2007 11:18 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 49 by jar, posted 11-05-2007 12:16 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 51 by AdminPaul, posted 11-05-2007 3:08 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 3:37 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 106 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 4:07 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 110 by Chiroptera, posted 11-11-2007 4:26 PM Beretta has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 41 of 111 (432306)
11-05-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:59 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
I know more than enough biology
Making the claim that all creatures have 2 eyes demonstrates that you know jack shit about biology.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:59 AM Beretta has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 42 of 111 (432307)
11-05-2007 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:59 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
Beretta writes:
Still I think we should have mutated eyes in the back of our heads -it makes more sense for survival.So many things would do better if they had more eyes.
You seem to be saying that evolution is false because it has not "mutated" features that would be very useful. Actually the fact that we do not have such wonderous features is more of an arguement against creation.
Evolution is very constrained by the past and the physical constraints of structures that require development over very small steps. If you look and compare humans to many animals you will realize that we are tetrapods. While an extra pair of arms and hands would be really useful, it has not happened because primates are constrained to the tetrapod design. Such a dramatic alteration would be too far a leap for evolution. If we were 'created' than nothing would be too far a leap and we would most likely not share so many attributes of other animals.
Ever look at a primates hands and notice the remarkable similarity? If man is made in Gods image than Chimps are over 90% in Gods image. God evidently blessed Chimps.
Beretta writes:
I am here to learn -that is the main thing apart from dispensing wisdom...of course.
Well lets hope you are here to learn. Before wisdom can be dispensed it has to be acquired. Perhaps you should stay in the biblical forums and not venture outside what you know.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:59 AM Beretta has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 43 of 111 (432310)
11-05-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:12 AM


Not so. Evolution is an idea based on the words of men.
Creation is a belief based on a supernatural book written through men inspired by God.God promises all over the Bible to preserve His word for all generations so that they will know and not be ignorant of what has happened.(The dead sea scrolls substantiate that)
Where is the proof that it is a supernatural book written through men inspired bu god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:12 AM Beretta has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 111 (432314)
11-05-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Beretta
11-05-2007 2:41 AM


Mankind always grabs at any opportunity to forget God - it is not at all surprising that evolution was accepted with the alacrity that it was.
Huh. You seem to have to rely on psychological motivations of other people to try to understand why people are disagreeing with you. Have you ever considered the possibility that you just don't know what you are talking about? This is a serious question -- when so many people disagree with you like this, don't you even consider the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong? That maybe there is something to learn about the subject before you should make up your mind? That when you have to resort to making up psychology to explain why so many people disagree with you, that this might be a sign that it is your side of the argument that is weak?

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 2:41 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 111 (432320)
11-05-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Beretta
11-05-2007 3:59 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
Not all only some - those that set us on the path to believing in evolution.There are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution.
Well, you could name them and quote them, except that this is some more rubbish that you made up in your head.
I assume that you are planning to follow up all these assertions of yours with evidence to convince me that you have proof and then watch me flounder in my mythological errors.Where is your proof???
I have already told you why I find evolution convincing.
Yes you're right. Am I going to be crucified for this?
No, you are not going to be crucified. Calm down.
What you might do --- but I'm not betting on it --- is you might stop talking rubbish about subjects of which you are ignorant.
Still I think we should have mutated eyes in the back of our heads -it makes more sense for survival.So many things would do better if they had more eyes.
So ... you still think that God got it wrong, yes?
Makes no sense to me that something so random made something so clever with no plan in mind.
So, you still haven't bothered to find out what the theory of evolution is?
Why don't you come back and argue with us when you know what it is?
You claimed to have facts that would blow away evolution
No I asked for your best evolutionary proof that would blow away any possibility that creation was feasible.
Try to lie less often.
You wrote, here
"I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation."
That is what you wrote.
But not created by us nor by random natural processes as far as I'm concerned.
Are you trying to deny that the modern banana was produced by artificial selection? If so, please present your evidence.
I apologize for being apparently surrounded by those far cleverer than myself.I should take off to a less evolved type website and play with those less evolved humans.
You don't need to apologise for meeting people better informed than you are. Just take the opportunity to learn from them.
I know more than enough biology.
And this is your central delusion, the mad stupid thing that you believe that you must stop believing before you can be cured.
You know bugger all about biology, which is why everything you say about it is wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:59 AM Beretta 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