Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#41 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:25 AM

"How did evolution create gravity"

I don't know where gravity comes from. Neither do you.

"and make it the perfect balance so we don't float away or be so strong that we are crushed?"

What do you mean "perfect balance"? Gravity varies extremely depending on where you are in the universe - on some planets you would be crushed to death on others you'd float away. And by the way life is more or less unaffected by gravity, which is why we don't instantly die when we go into outer space. Your feet are being pulled on by gravity stronger than your head is right now (assuming you're not reading this upside down). The idea that there's some precise amount of gravity that won't kill us just isn't accurate. Go to the top of a mountain and you weigh less. And there is "life" that thrives at the bottom of the ocean under a thousand times the atmospheric pressure we're under. The earth isn't "fine tuned" to life, individual species are "fine-tuned" to the environment.

"Also, how do evolutionists explain instinct and/or adaption? They are such simple words for something that is so amazingly complex, it truly boggles the mind."

You are literally saying "I have absolutely no idea what evolution even is". Do you actually want to know the answer to this question or are you just trying to evangelize?

"Evolution does indeed exclude God."

In no way. Darwin believed in a god, as do most people in the US who accept evolution.

"Atheists believe in evolution, evolution excludes God. Granted, theistic evolutionists believe in God but that’s not for appropriate for this topic."

I don't see why not. And atheists tend to accept evolution not because it's atheistic but because they have no reason not to. Atheists also accept that the earth is round more often than christians (some fundamentalists argue it's flat and unmoving). That doesn't make the idea that the earth is round atheistic.

I see no reason to think a god couldn't create life that evolves as easily as creating life that doesn't. If anything it would be more impressive and "intelligently designed".


That's just annoying! the bible clearly states that the earth is round and is the first book known to say that, and there you go claiming atheist have a better understanding of the shape of the earth.
God is super-intelligent, yet that's not his best trait. So u say if God created by evolution that makes Him intelligent in your eyes? Since when did we say atheists are the gold-standard of intelligence? so God has to fit a description that best tickles your fancy? Crating life in an instant makes Him God-Almighty.

#42 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM

Paleohyrax reprobae was found in the Cambrian. Does that count? Why? Why not?

But in any case, I think I hinted in my post that I'd rather find some actual statistics. Statistics based on the actual number of rabbit and dinosaur fossils found rather than an assumption based on what we observe about the breeding habits and population of rabbits today would be useful.

I would also like to know what unique qualities identify the "dinosaur layers" as opposed to the "rabbit layers", besides of course, the absence of rabbits.

I'm pretty sure that cambrian rabbit thing is a creationist hoax as a) I can only find references to it on creationist websites and only a handful at that, some of which call it a hoax, B) it's ridiculous, and c) every google result for "earliest rabbit fossil" or anything similar points to a 55 million year old fossil, and d) there is only one picture of this supposed fossil and it looks photoshopped.

#43 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:01 AM

Paleohyrax reprobae was found in the Cambrian. Does that count? Why? Why not?

Doesn't count because it is a hoax. Here is the author's confession on the same website that published it in the first place. http://www.talkingsq...t/archives/1033

But in any case, I think I hinted in my post that I'd rather find some actual statistics. Statistics based on the actual number of rabbit and dinosaur fossils found rather than an assumption based on what we observe about the breeding habits and population of rabbits today would be useful.

I would also like to know what unique qualities identify the "dinosaur layers" as opposed to the "rabbit layers", besides of course, the absence of rabbits.

You are the one who is supporting the idea that modern animals and humans were around at the same time that dinosaurs and trilobites. You support your claim.

#44 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:04 AM

1. No it was an invention of Creationists Posted Image Under the logic that in order to learn more about God, one must study his creation.

2. Inquiry is probably too strong a word Posted Image

No, people of all faiths and philosophies have made great contributions to science. You use arabic numerals and math developed in the islamic world to describe the distance between planets named for the greek gods, for instance.

#45 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:07 AM

I'm pretty sure that cambrian rabbit thing is a creationist hoax as a) I can only find references to it on creationist websites and only a handful at that, some of which call it a hoax, Posted Image it's ridiculous, and c) every google result for "earliest rabbit fossil" or anything similar points to a 55 million year old fossil, and d) there is only one picture of this supposed fossil and it looks photoshopped.

It was not a creationist hoax. Most creationists actually believe what the creationist websites are putting out. It's not really fair to blame them for something without evidence. Those creationist websites picked up on that because it appears to support their hypothesis. They probably should have done more research but they didn't originate it. Dr Splenebyrst from the London School of Ergonomics...I mean...really?!!!?? I could just bust a gut.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#46 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:08 AM

Where did I say that rabbits don't leave fossils?

Please re-read my posts and get back to me with something better than that.

I see what you're saying, sorry. I don't buy your logic though, there are land mammals and sea mammals and everything between in the fossil record. Even if, for instance, only ocean creatures fossilized, we should still expect to see modern ocean creatures in the cambrian if they existed in that period.

#47 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:20 AM

"That's just annoying! the bible clearly states that the earth is round and is the first book known to say that, and there you go claiming atheist have a better understanding of the shape of the earth."

It says everything from the "circle of the earth" to the "four corners" of the earth, and the word sphere I believe did not exist in ancient hebrew or wasn't used to describe the earth and circle could be interpreted as a flat disk as easily as it could as a sphere. Furthermore the bible describes many events which are seemingly geometrically impossible with a round earth such as jesus being seen descending from the sky by all the nations of the world simultaneously. But you can, I am sure, easily find some other way to look at it. But there's an argument to be made that some of the authors believed the world was flat and others perhaps did not. But it's irrelevant to my point since it was suspected the earth was round thousands of years ago since the curvature of the earth can be detected with the naked eye, especially on the open sea. And I wasn't saying the bible says the earth is flat or arguing for that, all I said was that some fundamentalist christians interpret it that way (and they do, google flat earth society) and that probably no atheists think the earth is flat, not because a round earth is an atheistic idea, but because they just have no ideological reason to think it's not round. That life evolves whether it was created or not is similarly not atheistic, atheists just tend to accept it because they have no reason not to.

"God is super-intelligent, yet that's not his best trait."

I don't pretend to know about people I've never met, let alone deities.

"So u say if God created by evolution that makes Him intelligent in your eyes? Since when did we say atheists are the gold-standard of intelligence? so God has to fit a description that best tickles your fancy? Crating life in an instant makes Him God-Almighty."

What's your problem? Am I not allowed to have an opinion? I'm an individual, not a member of an atheist hive mind.

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:50 AM

It says everything from the "circle of the earth" to the "four corners" of the earth, and the word sphere I believe did not exist in ancient hebrew or wasn't used to describe the earth and circle could be interpreted as a flat disk as easily as it could as a sphere. Furthermore the bible describes many events which are seemingly geometrically impossible with a round earth such as jesus being seen descending from the sky by all the nations of the world simultaneously. But you can, I am sure, easily find some other way to look at it. But there's an argument to be made that some of the authors believed the world was flat and others perhaps did not. But it's irrelevant to my point since it was suspected the earth was round thousands of years ago since the curvature of the earth can be detected with the naked eye, especially on the open sea. And I wasn't saying the bible says the earth is flat or arguing for that, all I said was that some fundamentalist christians interpret it that way (and they do, google flat earth society) and that probably no atheists think the earth is flat, not because a round earth is an atheistic idea, but because they just have no ideological reason to think it's not round. That life evolves whether it was created or not is similarly not atheistic, atheists just tend to accept it because they have no reason not to.

"God is super-intelligent, yet that's not his best trait."

I don't pretend to know about people I've never met, let alone deities.

"So u say if God created by evolution that makes Him intelligent in your eyes? Since when did we say atheists are the gold-standard of intelligence? so God has to fit a description that best tickles your fancy? Crating life in an instant makes Him God-Almighty."

What's your problem? Am I not allowed to have an opinion? I'm an individual, not a member of an atheist hive mind.


Its discussing the circle of the Earth as God's perspective.... if you stand above a basketball it looks like a circle yes?... Therefore a sphere can also be a circle from the proper perspective.

The four corners is in reference to the four directions North, South, East and West.

What events are these that are geometrically impossible? You need to back up your claim with evidence, lest you feel your words are golden...

#49 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:52 PM

I see what you're saying, sorry. I don't buy your logic though, there are land mammals and sea mammals and everything between in the fossil record. Even if, for instance, only ocean creatures fossilized, we should still expect to see modern ocean creatures in the cambrian if they existed in that period.


What "logic" are you talking about? I think you are trying to read something in my posts that isn't really there. My orginal post in this thread was simply a reaction to the "Cambrian rabbit" kind of arguments that are so often demonstrated as a falsification of evolution.

In doing so I made the point that before making assumptions about what animals should be fossilized together, we need to be a little sober about basing them on what we see today in the animal kingdom and look more closely at what we can observe in the fossil record.

Rather than make any claims myself, I freely admitted that "I have tried to find information providing statistics about such claims, but have not been able to find any".

In other words, I don't know and have never claimed that I did know. Since the evolutionists are the ones using this argument then I think it is up to them to provide statistics concerning rabbits and dinosaurs and clearly show evidence that these two kinds of animals would have been fossilized together.

#50 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

You are the one who is supporting the idea that modern animals and humans were around at the same time that dinosaurs and trilobites. You support your claim.


Que???

#51 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:08 PM

"Its discussing the circle of the Earth as God's perspective.... if you stand above a basketball it looks like a circle yes?... Therefore a sphere can also be a circle from the proper perspective."

As I said it might have been meant that way, but it's not specific enough to be sure.

"The four corners is in reference to the four directions North, South, East and West."

I would say rather that that is one plausible interpretation.

"What events are these that are geometrically impossible? You need to back up your claim with evidence, lest you feel your words are golden..."

I already said, but if you want a scripture reference matthew 24:30:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

There is also a dream in which a tree grows so tall all the kingdoms of the earth see it, but that's easy to rationalize because it's a) a dream, and B) screams metaphor. The above passage could be seen as a reference to the tribes of israel, either that whoever wrote the passage did not know there were other nations in the world, or that jesus didn't feel the need to mention them because people he was speaking to didn't know about them. Either way I'm not trying to argue theology and we're getting a bit off my original point which was that evolution is not atheistic. It neither requires there to be no god, nor is it primarily supported by atheists, neither among scientists nor the general population.

#52 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:09 PM

"That's just annoying! the bible clearly states that the earth is round and is the first book known to say that, and there you go claiming atheist have a better understanding of the shape of the earth."

It says everything from the "circle of the earth" to the "four corners" of the earth, and the word sphere I believe did not exist in ancient hebrew or wasn't used to describe the earth and circle could be interpreted as a flat disk as easily as it could as a sphere. Furthermore the bible describes many events which are seemingly geometrically impossible with a round earth such as jesus being seen descending from the sky by all the nations of the world simultaneously. But you can, I am sure, easily find some other way to look at it. But there's an argument to be made that some of the authors believed the world was flat and others perhaps did not. But it's irrelevant to my point since it was suspected the earth was round thousands of years ago since the curvature of the earth can be detected with the naked eye, especially on the open sea. And I wasn't saying the bible says the earth is flat or arguing for that, all I said was that some fundamentalist christians interpret it that way (and they do, google flat earth society) and that probably no atheists think the earth is flat, not because a round earth is an atheistic idea, but because they just have no ideological reason to think it's not round. That life evolves whether it was created or not is similarly not atheistic, atheists just tend to accept it because they have no reason not to.

"God is super-intelligent, yet that's not his best trait."

I don't pretend to know about people I've never met, let alone deities.

"So u say if God created by evolution that makes Him intelligent in your eyes? Since when did we say atheists are the gold-standard of intelligence? so God has to fit a description that best tickles your fancy? Crating life in an instant makes Him God-Almighty."

What's your problem? Am I not allowed to have an opinion? I'm an individual, not a member of an atheist hive mind.


This is the kind of thing that happens when people ignore context and base their arguments on what they read on anti-christian websites rather than on the hard work of biblical scholars who do more than simply read the english translation of isolated verses and draw conclusions without taking context into consideration.

Some scriptures are historical accounts, some are symbolic, some are doctrinal theology and some are poetic, and in this case, just as Gilbo pointed out, we need to consider what "perspective" is being presented. For example, here is Isaiah 40:22:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Does this verse claim that people ARE grasshoppers? Does it claim that the heavens ARE made of tent fabric?

No, it is simply a description made by Isaiah describing how things must appear from the perspective of God.

#53 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:12 PM

What "logic" are you talking about? I think you are trying to read something in my posts that isn't really there. My orginal post in this thread was simply a reaction to the "Cambrian rabbit" kind of arguments that are so often demonstrated as a falsification of evolution.

In doing so I made the point that before making assumptions about what animals should be fossilized together, we need to be a little sober about basing them on what we see today in the animal kingdom and look more closely at what we can observe in the fossil record.

Rather than make any claims myself, I freely admitted that "I have tried to find information providing statistics about such claims, but have not been able to find any".

In other words, I don't know and have never claimed that I did know. Since the evolutionists are the ones using this argument then I think it is up to them to provide statistics concerning rabbits and dinosaurs and clearly show evidence that these two kinds of animals would have been fossilized together.

So in other words you have nothing to back up your hypothesis but you consider it valid until disproven by people who disagree? It's the other way around, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And you made an argument and I disagreed and gave a logical reason why your argument doesn't hold water (which you have yet to comment on). And you act like I'm somehow out of bounds for disagreeing with you.

#54 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:17 PM

This is the kind of thing that happens when people ignore context and base their arguments on what they read on anti-christian websites rather than on the hard work of biblical scholars who do more than simply read the english translation of isolated verses and draw conclusions without taking context into consideration.

Some scriptures are historical accounts, some are symbolic, some are doctrinal theology and some are poetic, and in this case, just as Gilbo pointed out, we need to consider what "perspective" is being presented. For example, here is Isaiah 40:22:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Does this verse claim that people ARE grasshoppers? Does it claim that the heavens ARE made of tent fabric?

No, it is simply a description made by Isaiah describing how things must appear from the perspective of God.

I would actually go one step further and say that that is not what it says, but how you are interpreting it. What it says and how we interpret it are not the same thing. Which is why I qualify my remarks and say that you could interpret a passage x, y or z rather than dictating what it means. Nowhere did I say "the bible says the earth is flat!", I simply stated the fact that some fundamentalists interpret it that way, and that atheists who do not believe the earth is flat do not reject the idea because the earth being round is somehow atheistic, but because they have no reason within their worldview to question the established shape of the earth. Not agreeing with a particular interpretation of scripture isn't automatically atheistic just because you don't agree with it. This is the point I was making.

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:22 PM

I already said, but if you want a scripture reference matthew 24:30:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."


How does this infer a flat earth?Your assuming that the Sonn of man coming in the clouds is going to come directly to earth, perhaps he flys around a bit... However I don't know the context of this passage, so I'm sure someone else can help you out here.

#56 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:26 PM

How does this infer a flat earth?Your assuming that the Sonn of man coming in the clouds is going to come directly to earth, perhaps he flys around a bit... However I don't know the context of this passage, so I'm sure someone else can help you out here.

He's describing the end of the world, which interestingly he says will happen "within one generation", but that's another debate.

And look at it from my perspective, I have no need to interpret it in a way that makes god or jesus seem infallible or seem to have modern scientific knowledge, so to me given the two interpretations that a) he will float to the earth thousands of times all over the world so everybody can see him, or b ) whoever wrote this text did not understand how big the earth is, what shape it was or what the maximum distance is someone can see with the naked eye - the second seems more reasonable to me.

Of course I could also think up half a dozen more interpretations. I could say it alludes to mass media, ie everyone will see it happen in one place on the evening news. Or I could say that he simply wasn't speaking scientifically or I could say it's a metaphor for something else or maybe it's alluding to similar language in another part of scripture to tie two stories together. Or I could go digging through other translations and see if that makes a difference etc, etc. At the end of the day how we take it is our own opinion and nobody can say for sure what the original meaning was. Which to me calls for humility.

#57 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:37 PM

So in other words you have nothing to back up your hypothesis but you consider it valid until disproven by people who disagree? It's the other way around, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And you made an argument and I disagreed and gave a logical reason why your argument doesn't hold water (which you have yet to comment on). And you act like I'm somehow out of bounds for disagreeing with you.


To make things easier, perhaps you should explain what "claim" and what "argument" you are talking about.
  • MarkForbes likes this

#58 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:56 PM

or b ) whoever wrote this text did not understand how big the earth is, what shape it was or what the maximum distance is someone can see with the naked eye - the second seems more reasonable to me.


Or c) you don't understand what the verse is saying... or perhaps even d) that I have missunderstood what you are saying... but it seems to me you think the verse in question claims that everyone on earth will be able to see Jesus' "touchdown" (which howeverpossible given today's technology).

Here is the verse in question:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

So what does the size or shape of the earth have to do with everyone being to see something occurring in the clouds of heaven?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#59 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:08 PM

I would actually go one step further and say that that is not what it says, but how you are interpreting it. What it says and how we interpret it are not the same thing. Which is why I qualify my remarks and say that you could interpret a passage x, y or z rather than dictating what it means.


What it says?

What it means?

Please explain how you think you know what it says and what it means without the use of interpretation!

This should be interesting...

#60 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:05 AM

He's describing the end of the world, which interestingly he says will happen "within one generation", but that's another debate.

And look at it from my perspective, I have no need to interpret it in a way that makes god or jesus seem infallible or seem to have modern scientific knowledge, so to me given the two interpretations that a) he will float to the earth thousands of times all over the world so everybody can see him, or b ) whoever wrote this text did not understand how big the earth is, what shape it was or what the maximum distance is someone can see with the naked eye - the second seems more reasonable to me.

Of course I could also think up half a dozen more interpretations. I could say it alludes to mass media, ie everyone will see it happen in one place on the evening news. Or I could say that he simply wasn't speaking scientifically or I could say it's a metaphor for something else or maybe it's alluding to similar language in another part of scripture to tie two stories together. Or I could go digging through other translations and see if that makes a difference etc, etc. At the end of the day how we take it is our own opinion and nobody can say for sure what the original meaning was. Which to me calls for humility.

Here we have a big problem, namely you don''t have an idea WHO you are talking about. I think in your imagination you see Jesus appearing on the horizon the same way a plane would. I don't want to humour you by trying to defend what the verse is saying. In an age where it has believed that time and space can bend what makes you think its impossible for him to be seen by all?
You think Jesus is an engineer who is limited by time and space so in your thinking He should subscribe to the laws of physics. In other words you are belittling God to the level of what you understand. Your school results are enough evidence that you don't know everything yet you still want God to fit in your already limited mind. How is that supposed to work?
Now lest you be puffed up against us, check

Rev_6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
So given a scenario where where heaven and earth can be 'rolled' whats to stop us from believing He shall be seen from all 'corners' of the earth?
The real issue i see here is you really don't have a valid reason not to believe so you step into this 'if i cant conceive it then its not true'. I still don't conceive how my car does certain things but i know it does them nontheless




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users