Jump to content


Photo

Wikipedia's "intelligent Design" Page


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#61 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:59 AM

You've demonstrated that you didn't comprehend the sentence, "But agnostics are also IDists."


Maybe mike the wiz will be kind enough to clarify, but I understood him to mean some agnostics are IDists. That's a legitimate possible meaning of that sentence and I'm quite certain it's plausible.

But if he meant that all agnostics are IDists, then yeah, I really don't comprehend.

.
There is no other way to interpret the sentence as worded; there is no qualification in the sentence. Your change in the meaning to the only reasonable meaning does not change the fact that the sentence's author made a preposterous statement and, further, this is typical of that member and, what's worse, he will never acknowledge the blatant, serious error--hence, my decision to put him on the ignore list.

(Schwing, top of the page!)

#62 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:17 AM

There is no other way to interpret the sentence as worded; ...


You could never make a living as a lawyer. But don't feel bad, I couldn't either.

#63 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:40 AM

Yes Ken, I just meant agnostics can also be IDists and a portion of them are (I remember reading a blog by an ID agnostic). We have also had a member here who was agnostic and IDist, I can't remember his name now as he hasn't been on for a while.

 

Sometimes when I am typing fast I perhaps don't explain things as accurately as I should, in context I was saying to Piasan that because he says "we all know who the designer is", implying it is God - I was reminding him that technically you can be an IDist and be agnostic or even atheist.

 

If there certainly are agnosts that are IDist, then how can ID be a religious argument? It wouldn't be possible for areligious people to be IDist if it was a religious position. The construction of an eyeball, all of the parts being created for sight - isn't a religious statement.



#64 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:50 AM

 

 

Schera: There is no other way to interpret the sentence as worded; there is no qualification in the sentenceYour change in the meaning to the only reasonable meaning does not change the fact that the sentence's author made a preposterous statement and, further, this is typical of that member and, what's worse, he will never acknowledge the blatant, serious error--hence, my decision to put him on the ignore list.

 

I acknowledge it was poorly worded. However I don't think this justifies your silly personal attack. If something is worded badly this isn't "preposterous", it's in fact a minor error, drama queen.

 

I think you should know by now that I wouldn't have ever meant; "all agnostics are Idists."

 

To be honest Schera, I only think one member here would be obtuse enough to believe that logically I would take the position of believing agnostics are defined as IDists. That would be an absurd argument. Did you really believe I was of the belief that not one agnost is an evolutionist?

 

Obviously in context I was saying something about ID, as Ken spotted.



#65 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:51 AM

in the beginning there was, what, nothing?
what exactly was this "nothing".
how would you know the "physical laws" of nothingness?
was there even a pure vacuum?
did time even exist, or was it "created" along with everything else?
so, to imply that it's impossible for the supernatural to exist, or existed, is nothing more than an assumption.

#66 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 25 August 2017 - 12:43 PM

There is no other way to interpret the sentence as worded; ...


You could never make a living as a lawyer. But don't feel bad, I couldn't either.

.
There's plenty of room for additional people who are constitutionally incapable of admitting when wrong.

Welcome as entry #5 on the list.

It now reads:

Goku
Blitzking
what if
m the w
KenJackson

#67 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 August 2017 - 12:48 PM

:crazyguy:

 

Much a Schera ado about nothing. ...(nothing new there then.) Lol



#68 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 August 2017 - 01:28 PM

in the beginning there was, what, nothing?
what exactly was this "nothing".
how would you know the "physical laws" of nothingness?
was there even a pure vacuum?
did time even exist, or was it "created" along with everything else?
so, to imply that it's impossible for the supernatural to exist, or existed, is nothing more than an assumption.

 

In my view we simply don't know what was in the beginning.

 

Modern physics does allow for the possibility of a universe to come about from a state devoid of time, space, and matter. What is required are the laws of nature like quantum fluctuations which do not require space according to theory; whether you want to call that "nothing" or not is ultimately a distraction in my view.

 

As an atheist what such ideas allow is the possibility of the universe existing without requiring a God or some sort of supernatural phenomena. IOW God is not a guarantee prerequisite, and leaves open the 'god-of-the-gaps' argumentation depending on where conversation goes.

 

I'm short on time, so I'll just end by saying that the ultimate question of why there is something rather than nothing applies to the theist as much as the atheist: why is there a God rather than no God?



#69 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 25 August 2017 - 01:51 PM

There's plenty of room for additional people who are constitutionally incapable of admitting when wrong.

Welcome as entry #5 on the list.

It now reads:

Goku
Blitzking
what if
m the w
KenJackson


dog_sigh.jpg



#70 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 02:14 PM

In my view we simply don't know what was in the beginning.

exactly.
it seems to me that ANY possibility sane or insane is equally likely.

Modern physics does allow for the possibility of a universe to come about from a state devoid of time, space, and matter. What is required are the laws of nature like quantum fluctuations which do not require space according to theory; whether you want to call that "nothing" or not is ultimately a distraction in my view.

oh my, i never imagined "nothing" could be such a fascinating subject.
nothing, as in the mathematical point, does this mean it only exists as a concept?
could there ever be anything such as a "nothing"?
not being able to define it is pretty good evidence the laws would be different.
 

As an atheist what such ideas allow is the possibility of the universe existing without requiring a God or some sort of supernatural phenomena. IOW God is not a guarantee prerequisite, and leaves open the 'god-of-the-gaps' argumentation depending on where conversation goes.

well see, we just don't know, science has been unable to recreate life.
and judging from the looks of it, it's highly unlikely to do so in the near future.
yeah, yeah, the press would like you to think otherwise.
are they close?
we don't even have a plausible scenario for how life got here, that's how close we are.
 

I'm short on time, so I'll just end by saying that the ultimate question of why there is something rather than nothing applies to the theist as much as the atheist: why is there a God rather than no God?

that wasn't my question.
i was commenting on the physical laws of nothing would be different than the laws of reality.

#71 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:05 PM

It sounds like you're defending ID, which allows all the animal phyla to arrive at once. If the rules of evolution allow anything quick, then clearly I've missed something.

yes, you have clearly missed something, like the following paper:
be sure to read the reviewers comments for some real eye openers.
if you can't access it, let me know and i'll upload it.
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

 

. . .it's difficult to get an accurate picture of evolution. ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples, naming proteins and specifying their functions, as agreed by mainstream science.
Evolutionists tend to give loose heuristic arguments based on biology and detailed arguments based on fossils. The problem with that is that no fossil has ever ruled out individual acts of design and creation.

the rules of the game has changed since about 2000 or so.
it's becoming all too clear that epigenetics is the primary driver of evolution.
read some good stuff here:
evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6672-is-evolution-a-proven-fact/page-5
 

I'm not sure what "standards" and which "these 2" you mean.

these 2, god/ID and science
standards, i haven't a clue as to any standard, so find one or 2, 3 would be even better.
caveat, these standards must be something everyone agrees on.

the science of ID draws very heavily on accepted knowledge of molecular biology and other sciences. When Behe wrote "Darwin's Black Box", no one challenged his description of how the eye or the blood-clot cascade work. That's accepted. The contention came when he drew reasonable conclusions.

IMO, it's completely irrelevant (or should be) to science whether there is a god or not.
airplanes will not fall out of the sky if god is discovered tomorrow.
i could give more biting examples, but i'll refrain.

then again i can't get away from the little niggling clues here and there.
the arrival of life, the sudden arrival of animal phyla, the placebo effect, consciousness.
the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people feel they are more than what physical laws can explain.
and the ugliest fact is, evolution isn't helping its case by condoning fraud.

there it is, make of it what you will.

#72 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 26 August 2017 - 09:55 AM

yes, you have clearly missed something, like the following paper:

No paper followed. There was no link there.
 

the rules of the game has changed since about 2000 or so.
it's becoming all too clear that epigenetics is the primary driver of evolution.
read some good stuff here:
evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6672-is-evolution-a-proven-fact/page-5

That post seemed like more loose heuristic arguments.

Let me give an example of what I mean when I say "ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples."

In figure 10.5 in his book "Undeniable", Douglas Axe shows all 20 amino acids make up the protein Rhodopsin, which is one of 5 components that make up the membrane disks, which is one of 2 components that make up the outer segment, which is one of 5 components that make up rod cells, which is one of 2 type of cells that make up the rod/cone layer, which is one of 10 components that make up the retina, which is one of 7 components that make up the eye, which is one of 5 systems that make up the complete visual system of mammals.

The point is functional coherence. It does no good to evolve hundreds of amino acids into precisely the right order and folding to form Rhodopsin if all the other components aren't there too. That's a very specific design example. Evolutionists would need to answer with an order of evolution--a possible path to get there which includes natural selection. But all we get are vague hand waving arguments.

 

god/ID

Evolutionists, fearful that their 19th-century science will yield to 21st-century information, eagerly conflate the science of ID with the beliefs of Creationism. But Creationism isn't science because it's based on the Bible. ID is a response to this valid concern. Scientists realized that microbiology has revealed there is a clear design to life. They don't have to reference God or the Bible to show that the mechanism described a century and a half ago only explains variations within a kind (roughly a species). It cannot explain the origin of species.

"what if", you CLAIM to be agnostic, and yet you repeatedly conflate the science of ID with God by using your little "god/ID" moniker. That's the kind of thing the atheist high priests of Darwinism do.

 

standards, i haven't a clue as to any standard, so find one or 2, 3 would be even better.
caveat, these standards must be something everyone agrees on.

I don't think there's any need for new standards. ID draws heavily on mainstream microbiology. There's probably not much disagreement there. They also draw heavily on logic, which may be a standard within itself. They also draw heavily on the relatively new field of information theory. Some have gone so far as to say infomation is a fundamental element of the universe which must be added to matter and energy.

Isn't that interesting? Humans are made of body, mind and spirit. The universe is made of matter, energy and information. God is made of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

IMO, it's completely irrelevant (or should be) to science whether there is a god or not.

I don't think any ID scientists will disagree. There's general agreement that science, by definition, does not reference God.

 

then again i can't get away from the little niggling clues here and there.
the arrival of life, the sudden arrival of animal phyla, the placebo effect, consciousness.
the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people feel they are more than what physical laws can explain.
and the ugliest fact is, evolution isn't helping its case by condoning fraud.

I appreciate those. But there are two others that I think are monumental.

First is the sharp difference in both effect and direction between anything that's alive and anything that's not. By "direction" I mean that among the non-living, everything wears down, wears out and rots. Nothing gets better. But the living sprouts up, thrives and reproduces. It's hard to describe, but it's obvious. (Maybe this connects with your "more" clause.)

Second is the lack of intermediate states. I know this has been hotly contested ever since Darwin published, but it just makes no sense that you would have such finely tuned, extremely complex life forms with nothing in progress; and no evidence that there ever was anything in progress. (Maybe this connects with your "sudden arrival" clause.)
  • mike the wiz likes this

#73 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 26 August 2017 - 10:58 AM

Six entries "hidden because..."

Clean, fresh air....<*breath in, out*> Ahhhhh.

I sure do hope Wicked-Pee-D-Uh has an untimely demise; yet, an elderly gentleman, whom I normally respect, published and online article and referenced the detestable subject site.

I think I ought to go over there and ask whether anyone thinks he, David Horowitz, is part of the problem.

#74 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 August 2017 - 11:20 AM

No paper followed. There was no link there.

i'm sorry, i should have been a little clearer.
select the title of the paper, then drag it into your search engine.
it should appear in the search results.
 

evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6672-is-evolution-a-proven-fact/page-5

That post seemed like more loose heuristic arguments.

you might have had a point if it was the only paper i have, but it isn't
i've presented a lot of evidence in that thread.

Let me give an example of what I mean when I say "ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples."

In figure 10.5 in his book "Undeniable", Douglas Axe shows all 20 amino acids make up the protein Rhodopsin, which is one of 5 components that make up the membrane disks, which is one of 2 components that make up the outer segment, which is one of 5 components that make up rod cells, which is one of 2 type of cells that make up the rod/cone layer, which is one of 10 components that make up the retina, which is one of 7 components that make up the eye, which is one of 5 systems that make up the complete visual system of mammals.

The point is functional coherence. It does no good to evolve hundreds of amino acids into precisely the right order and folding to form Rhodopsin if all the other components aren't there too. That's a very specific design example. Evolutionists would need to answer with an order of evolution--a possible path to get there which includes natural selection. But all we get are vague hand waving arguments.

first, throw natural selection out the window, preferably the 10th floor.
second, it seems to me that transposons and epigenetics can produce the above mentioned protein.
third, i consider the acquisition of sight acquired information.
IOW it's an example of actual evolution instead of rearrangement of already existing material.
fourth, the above makes it plain that biomolecules do not need to be useful to be "created", the only requirement is that the cell maintains viability.
throw in the sandbox concept, epigenetics, and tagged transposons, and you got yourself a functioning genetics engineering lab.

the modern synthesis is dead, and practically everything associated with it.


 

Scientists realized that microbiology has revealed there is a clear design to life.

i'll agree that science is going to have a very tough time of recreating life.
whether it was designed or not puts a person in a very bad situation, because you now have to give evidence of the nature of the intelligence that created (or designed) life.
do any of these people mention this nature, or how this intelligence effected the arrival of first life?

They don't have to reference God or the Bible to show that the mechanism described a century and a half ago only explains variations within a kind (roughly a species). It cannot explain the origin of species.

catalysis or enzymes can explain it.
i also believe tagged transposons in combination with the sandbox concept explains it.

these people do however have a point, it certainly appears that there was an intelligence "tinkering" with the earliest stages of life, apparently trying to "get it right".
 

"what if", you CLAIM to be agnostic, and yet you repeatedly conflate the science of ID with God by using your little "god/ID" moniker. That's the kind of thing the atheist high priests of Darwinism do.

FYI, i despise the word atheist, and i find the god concept ludicrous.
as far as ID goes, you either must call ET or a god.


 

I don't think there's any need for new standards. ID draws heavily on mainstream microbiology. There's probably not much disagreement there. They also draw heavily on logic, which may be a standard within itself. They also draw heavily on the relatively new field of information theory. Some have gone so far as to say infomation is a fundamental element of the universe which must be added to matter and energy.

give me some sources for this stuff.
titles of books, peer reviewed papers, anything.
 

Second is the lack of intermediate states. I know this has been hotly contested ever since Darwin published, but it just makes no sense that you would have such finely tuned, extremely complex life forms with nothing in progress; and no evidence that there ever was anything in progress. (Maybe this connects with your "sudden arrival" clause.)

the paper i mentioned goes into this and essentially confirms what you have said.
yes, it connects with the "sudden arrival" of animal phyla.
koonin used the phrase "ready made" but later changed it to "abruptly" because one of the reviewers commented that "ready made" alludes to ID.

#75 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 August 2017 - 06:39 PM

 

 

 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.
....

 
Here you have the power of government being the arbitrator on scientific truth. Do you think they are a good institution for doing that.
 Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear.....
 
The validity of scientific theories should be determined by scientists.  Not legislators.  Not state board of education members.  Not local school boards.  Not judges.

 Well, your POV is now much clearer. 
 

But you realize that there is a problem. There is no such thing like "Scientist", there are just individual scientists that on their own may be part of organisations and professional bodies, which then again may issue statements. Different scientists may hold different views on what is valid scientific truth and what's not. 

So how do you arbitrate anything in that kind of situation. Democratic vote? Consensus? Shouting Contest?

Different scientists hold different views all the time.  Mainstream science ..... what we teach in the classroom .... is probably best defined  as the current scientific consensus.  

 

We have too little time to teach that properly, let alone discuss the proposals made by such "fringe" ideas as ID.



#76 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 August 2017 - 08:17 PM

Judges only get involved AFTER creationists have attempted using legislators, state board of education members, or local school boards as the arbitrators of scientific truth.
 
Specifically, with reference to ID, the process is FIRST become accepted science THEN be taught in the schools.
 
Even the leading ID organization, the Discovery Institute, recognizes that ID is not (yet) ready for the classroom.

 

That's untrue. The judiciary arm got involved, after people were complaining that creationists, ID or other POV's became part of school curricula or were in mentioned in textbooks.

The fact is that several states first passed laws banning the teaching of evolution.  Note: it was creationists who enacted these laws.

 

The fact is that the first involvement by the judiciary was the Scopes trial in 1925.  Scopes was convicted of violating Tennessee's "Butler Act" by teaching evolution.

 

The next involvement by the judiciary I know of was Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968.  Epperson was required by law to teach the textbook provided by the district.  She was also forbidden by law from teaching evolution.  The textbook provided contained evolution.  Epperson could be sanctioned for teaching evolution or for not teaching evolution.... a classic "Catch-22."

 

She took the situation to court and it went to the Supreme Court.  During arguments before the Supreme Court, the Assistant Attorney General for the state of Arkansas said the mere mention there is a theory of evolution was sufficient to trigger the anti-evolution penalties.

 

Notice, the problem that led to the trial was evolution in the textbooks, not "ID or other POV's."  It was the mere mention of evolution that was banned, not some alternative point of view.

 

The end result of Epperson v. Arkansas was that the Supreme Court struck down the anti-evolution laws. 

 

The response creationists in Arkansas, then Louisiana was passage of "Balanced Treatment" laws mandating that creation be taught if evolution was.  In McLean v. Arkansas, the Arkansas law was struck down by the Fifth(?) Circuit Court.  The Louisiana law was overturned by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard.



#77 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 August 2017 - 09:55 PM

As for the Dover case, wasn't that just about the requirement that teachers should tell pupils: "We teach this in the class room", but "there is some book in the library that got a different POV"?!

.....

And yes, nothing wrong with inferring a creative intelligence from observed complex designs in nature:
https://archive.org/...sBookUndeniable

That was pretty much the trigger for the case.

 

If you look into the background....

There were two YEC board members who thought this was a way to introduce creationism into the school.  One of them found the creationist/ID book and thought it would be a way to achieve that goal.  Later they both swore they didn't know where the money to buy the book came from.  Turns out, they actually provided the funding and their church was involved.  (I don't recall exactly how.)  There were a number of books purchased for the school library.

 

The board insisted teachers read a statement in class that these books were available in the library.  The funny thing is that probably not one of those books would ever have been checked out.

 

Nothing at all wrong with the inference, but it's a philosophical/theological argument.

 

 


 

But I guess the result of the Dover case is that it's illegal to teach the truth. I don't know any high school teachers that teach biology, but they're in kind of a predicament! If some bright student notices the absurdity of accidental complexity and challenges the teacher, maybe he'll have to say he can't answer because it's against the law. Or maybe he'll say the government believes in evolution so we can't acknowledge any doubts. But if he says it that way it might sound like a coded message against evolution.

I taught high school biology for five years.  This is an introductory course.  You guys seem to think we get a lot deeper into this stuff than is actually the case.

 

In Edwards v. Aguillard, the SCOTUS affirmed the rights of teachers to teach any scientific theory. 

 

There are a lot of teachers who simply won't teach evolution either because of their religious convictions or due to pressures from administrators.  Some years ago the NSTA (National Science Teacher's Association) conducted a poll.  About a third of all science teachers reported they had been pressured to not teach evolution.  In my own case, the principal escorted me to the superintendent's office.  The superintendent was absolutely clear:  "If you want to be back next year, you'll stop teaching that evolution crap."

 

Since state standards required I teach the "diversity of life is the result of small changes over time" this put me in a situation similar to Epperson's.  (Notice how the state mandated evolution without using the word.)

 

What I did was to introduce a "disclaimer" at the start of sections on the Big Bang or evolution in my science classes.  It was made clear that I didn't care what their religious beliefs were and they were absolutely free to hold those beliefs without it having any impact at all on their grades.  However, this is a science class and IN CLASS they will be expected to tell me what science says and why science says it.

 

There was one student who approached me about having a debate on evolution with her minister.  I told her I'd be happy to, but as a Catholic, I wasn't going to argue the existence of God.  She never got back with me about it.  I suspect her minister was more interested in arguing theism than science. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users