Jump to content


Does Water Mean Life?


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

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 07:18 AM

We are often told by scientist that if water were found on another planet, it would have life. But what is not told, is that not all water is suitable to have life in it. Our earth has a system that cleans and recycles water. Getting rid of most impurities and toxins. A system of just the right temperature (for water evaporation, and returning to it's liquid form), barometric pressure (so storms can form), under ground water, plus a way to filter this water as it seeps into the ground. All of this keeps our water clean and full of life.

But what would keep the water clean on Mars? If the water on Mars has toxic chemicals in it, no matter if it flowed all over the surface, or the whole planet was covered. What is deadly to life cannot sustain life. So was there such a system, on Mars, for water to sustain life like on earth? There is no see-able evidence of this. Several probes have been sent to Mars to collect data. Even one that drove around. If science wanted so bad to prove life existed on Mars, why was none of these probes designed to take samples of the water and send that data back to earth? After all, I do know this capability they do have. For they sent probes to a comet, which is mainly ice, to send back date on that ice.

The difference in the comet, and Mars, is that they are not looking for life on the comet. So the data from the ice won't have a bearing on that subject. But they want life to have been on Mars. So having this data about the water on Mars being to toxic for life, would destroy any hopes for funding to go there.

Which makes me ask this question: If they are to with hold evidence like this to ensure they get to go, who can guarantee that what they find won't be fudged as well? Think about it. You just spent 300 billions dollars to go to Mars to check on life. How stupid would you look not to find any, and to report that fact? I would not want to be in the shoes of the person that confirms: No life on Mars. So if we go, I don't think we will get the truth on this. Because who could ever dispute it? And if we don't find life, we won't be going back either. And the space program just may get scrubbed as well.

In fact, I do remember one probe that was sent to Mars that did the experiments on the soil, and found it to be as sterile as any of our deserts. I notice science does not talk about this finding. Because this finding made them realize how unique our existence on this planet really is. I also wonder why this is not taught in any text books? Is it because of the doubt that it casts on "all" that science would have us to believe?

#2 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 09:17 AM

We are often told by scientist that if water were found on another planet, it would have life.

I'd consider it more accurate to say that the presence of liquid water is considered by most scientists to be among the minimum prerequisites for life.

If science wanted so bad to prove life existed on Mars, why was none of these probes designed to take samples of the water and send that data back to earth?

I doubt if very many scientists are optimistic enough about the prospects for finding life currently thriving on Mars to make strong recommendations for giving first priority to that type of sampling. Given what we already know about conditions there, we would expect any present life forms to be vanishingly scarce at best. For scientists, the first question is: "has life ever existed on Mars?"

You just spent 300 billions dollars to go to Mars to check on life. How stupid would you look not to find any, and to report that fact? I would not want to be in the shoes of the person that confirms: No life on Mars.

I think most scientists would prefer being the bearer of that bad news to being in the shoes of the person that had made bold announcements that evidence for life on Mars had been found, should that evidence fail to withstand close scrutiny.

By limiting yourself to the question: "Does life exist on Mars?", you are taking a rather narrow view of the goals of Mars exploration. I won't deny that funding is and will likely always be an issue, or that the space program can, in the light of such funding considerations, afford to ignore the ways in which the value of such explorations will be percieved by a largely scientifically illiterate populace, or that finding actual evidence for life on Mars would be the best thing that could happen from a standpoint of funding.

But NASA takes a broader view:

--------------------------
The key to understanding the past, present or future potential for life on Mars can be found in the four broad, overarching goals for Mars Exploration:

Goal 1: Determine if Life ever arose on Mars.

Goal 2: Characterize the Climate of Mars.

Goal 3: Characterize the Geology of Mars.

Goal 4: Prepare for Human Exploration of Mars.
--------------------------

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 09:59 AM

I get the impression that this goes much further than just finding life, more so on proving a long standing belief we were created. For I can guarantee that if no life is found to have ever existed, it will not stop the quest to prove we were not created. 300 billion dollars to prove creation wrong?

They use the excuse that we need to find our origins? For what reason? What will it do, besides prove creation wrong (if they do), that would benefit mankind that would be worth spending that kind of money? Is there a miracle cure for every disease known to man on Mars? Or will they bring back one that will wipe us out?

Besides, what's wrong with staying on our own planet? I don't like my tax dollar being spent this way, unless the rest of the world splits the cost. But I don't see that happening.

#4 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 11:03 AM

I get the impression that this goes much further than just finding life

It does.

They use the excuse that we need to find our origins? For what reason?

In a forum dedicated to discussions about the comparative strengths of the two main bodies of thought concerning what might arguably be considered the one matter of most interest to humans since the dawn of time (and in a sub-section of that forum entitled: "origins"), is there not an agonizing irony in the asking of this question?

Besides, what's wrong with staying on our own planet?

Now there's a question worth asking. It may well be that for reasons yet unknown, future generations may regard the optimism of our time for the prospects of colonizing other planets to be as naive as the way we view the utopian views popular at the outset of the industrial revolution (and again during the 1950's -- as Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes fame said: "Where are the jet-packs? Where are the anti-gravity belts?"). I certainly hope no one is looking at Mars as a convenient place to escape to once we have completed the process of rendering Earth uninhabitable.

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 10:33 PM

In a forum dedicated to discussions about the comparative strengths of the two main bodies of thought concerning what might arguably be considered the one matter of most interest to humans since the dawn of time (and in a sub-section of that forum entitled: "origins"), is there not an agonizing irony in the asking of this question?


The answer to whether life is, or is not on Mars. Will only raise more speculation. More guesses as to the question of origins. Questions that cannot be answered in the fashion science wants it. I really think that what ever is found will only confuse man even more. Because those of the time, won't be so ready to give up ideas they have work their whole life trying to prove. And I believe this will be a draw back for science because the old and the new will be at each other throats as one tries to replace the other.

#6 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 11:56 PM

The answer to whether life is, or is not on Mars. Will only raise more speculation. More guesses as to the question of origins.

Speculation is how scientific inquiry begins. Does that seem unreasonable to you? Virtually every new answer to an old question raises new questions. If there is something about that that makes you uncomfortable, what do you propose as a solution? Neither the discovery of life on Mars nor establishing that it never existed there (a much more difficult thing to accomplish, btw) would be the final word on origins. I still don't see that as justification for abandoning the effort, even if an answer to that question was the only reason for going there (which it isn't, despite your obvious assumption to the contrary).


I really think that what ever is found will only confuse man even more.

Would you consider the potential for confusion to be greater or less than the confusion produced by (say) the discovery that our solar system is heliocentric rather than geocentric?

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2005 - 11:58 PM

Speculation is how scientific inquiry begins. Does that seem unreasonable to you? Virtually every new answer to an old question raises new questions. If there is something about that that makes you uncomfortable, what do you propose as a solution? Neither the discovery of life on Mars nor establishing that it never existed there (a much more difficult thing to accomplish, btw) would be the final word on origins. I still don't see that as justification for abandoning the effort, even if an answer to that question was the only reason for going there (which it isn't, despite your obvious assumption to the contrary).


But also adds more odds to the probability of it.

Would you consider the potential for confusion to be greater or less than the confusion produced by (say) the discovery that our solar system is heliocentric rather than geocentric?

View Post


Does it really matter which one? The way the whole universe is in unison that allows the perfect conditions for life to exist on our planet. Still points to creation of earth being the most important part of why everything exists just as it does. For can you name one thing, in the universe, that can be out by 10% from what it is now, that would not effect life here, if not totally destroy it? Our planet seems to be to center of how everything else has to operate. Even though we are not the object that all revolves around. The sun is.

But what if our planet were? To me, it would not make much difference, for I know life exists here for a reason. I Know I am here for a reason. And not some speck in space that all the inconceivable odds just happened to allow life. You may think it takes more faith to believe God. I think it takes more faith to believe the odds of something that even a super computer can't understand, or figure out. But then again, science has gotten out of the odds game, and now relies on the odd of one chance means it will happen, given billions of years of chance of course.

Example: The way science now looks at odds, is that if I played the lotto 100 times using the same number, expecting to win each time I played. That it would actually happen because there is one chance, given enough time, that it would. Problem with these odds of winning 100 times, using the same number, is that eternity would not even give enough time to do it.

But, one chance means that it will, so I guess everything science comes up with is now possible. I guess to prove what is not really provable, you have to resort to things like this. reality of scientific theory always has to be true :angry: .

#8 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 12:48 AM

QUOTE:
Would you consider the potential for confusion to be greater or less than the confusion produced by (say) the discovery that our solar system is heliocentric rather than geocentric?

(Admin3):
Does it really matter which one?

Yes, I think it does. The Roman Catholic Church thought so too, and condemned the idea as being in direct contradiction to the Bible. Clearly, there was confusion, but sown by whom? The Bible? Ptolemy? The Roman Catholic Church? Copernicus? Galileo?

The heliocentric theory of the solar system is today regarded by many as one of the most important discoveries in history, and is the fundamental starting point of the modern science of astronomy. But I think it also has significance for anyone seeking to understand his place in the universe (which, surely, is every one of us). Whatever reasons you find for being here, they must be reasons that work on a mere speck in space. Because that's where you are, like it or not. It might be worth noting that not all religions need to make it a central premise that the earth was created for the sole purpose of providing us with a stage on which to act out our little cosmic drama (the Sun and Moon explicitly created "to give light upon the earth", the stars being, clearly, somewhat of an afterthought).

Before we could give serious consideration to any claim that the emergence of life was in defiance of overwhelming odds, we'd need to know just what those odds were. We don't. Finding life on another speck nearby would suggest that those odds were not as overwhelming as some would prefer to believe -- and you're right, many of them might be confused by this (having been so strongly persuaded by the confidence of people presenting themselves as mathematically sophisticated, not realizing that their numbers had been conjured out of thin air).

#9 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 02:34 AM

Since the numbers of odds are conjured out of thin air, as you suggest. Why not list which numbers these are, and why they were conjured? For if Stanley Miller can't make the basics for life, without cheating. It tells me these odds are alot more than most realize.

#10 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 05 September 2005 - 05:34 AM

Life is much more than "just add water". I will suggest to Admin 3 to read the book The Privileged Planet or watch the video.

Also scientists have determined the simplest life would require 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins. The probability for getting this vastly exceeds 1 chance in 10^150.

The only recourse to the anti-IDist is to throw some doubt towards those numbers.

#11 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 08:58 AM

View Post

Since the numbers of odds are conjured out of thin air, as you suggest. Why not list which numbers these are, and why they were conjured?

Here's a pretty good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about:

"The simplest life would require 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins. The probability for getting this vastly exceeds 1 chance in 10^150."

No stage magician could ever have successfully pulled a rabbit out of his hat without employing a technique known in the trade as misdirection. The idea is to keep the audience from looking at what you don't want them to look at by making sure their attention is on something else. Here, we are invited to visualize a very large number, and as long as we are busy watching the zeros run off the page, we probably won't notice the bogus assumption: that abiogenesis could only have been the result of a single-step process.

For if Stanley Miller can't make the basics for life, without cheating. It tells me these odds are alot more than most realize.

Though it may be a little hard to believe now, serious credence was once given to the idea of "spontaneous generation" (sometimes referred to as Aristotelian abiogenesis). Francesco Redi's experiment involving flies and wide-mouth jars containing meat put that idea to a much-needed rest in 1668 (or should have). Miller's experiments might be thought of as something of a correlate to that, and while his results showed that some of the essential ingredients for life are not so hard to come by, it wasn't all good news for anyone so optimistic as to suppose that the whole matter would turn out to be as simple as adding a bit of lightning. I'm not sure what it is that you are referring to as "cheating".

There is scarcely anything regarding abiogenesis that deserves to be called a hypothesis; at this point, it's still pretty much all conjecture. But common to all of the popular conjectures is that they are searches for some kind of 'scaffolding'; some means by which the jump from non-life to life could have occurred incrementally. ID proponents prefer to ignore this, and pretend that they are claims for 'informational spontaneous generation'.

#12 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 01:09 PM

There is scarcely anything regarding abiogenesis that deserves to be called a hypothesis; at this point, it's still pretty much all conjecture. But common to all of the popular conjectures is that they are searches for some kind of 'scaffolding'; some means by which the jump from non-life to life could have occurred incrementally. ID proponents prefer to ignore this, and pretend that they are claims for 'informational spontaneous generation'.

View Post


Why should anyone seriously consider conjecture? If anyone is ignoring anything its the evolutionists who hang on to the conjecture, not the creationists who realizes why the conjecture is necessary, and fantasy.

Terry

#13 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 04:41 PM

Why should anyone seriously consider conjecture?

In order to obtain numbers they can use to dismiss such conjecture, creationists/ID proponents find it necessary to act as if it were more than mere conjecture; otherwise, what would be the basis for accepting any numbers they come up with?

If anyone is ignoring anything its the evolutionists who hang on to the conjecture

What is it again that you feel is being ignored? And how does anyone "hang on to conjecture"? The very term indicates an idea that has yet to earn acceptance in the first place.

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 05:32 PM

What is it again that you feel is being ignored? And how does anyone "hang on to conjecture"? The very term indicates an idea that has yet to earn acceptance in the first place.


Abiogenisis is conjecture, the RNA world is conjecture. The developement of the gentic code by naturalistic means is conjecture.

All of those things things are more or less accepted since its all the materialist has to hang on to. Despite the absurdity of their claims, the "scientific community" is convinced that all or most of these things tool place. Its all they have to hang on to.

Terry

#15 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2005 - 06:33 PM

Abiogenisis is conjecture

That abiogenesis occurred is accepted as self-evident.

the RNA world is conjecture.

Yes. Didn't I say that?

The developement of the gentic code by naturalistic means is conjecture.

No, that proposition is also axiomatic.

All of those things things are more or less accepted since its all the materialist has to hang on to.

No, they aren't. You can't lump conjectures, hypotheses, and axioms together indiscriminately. The RNA world 'hypothesis' is not enthusiastically endorsed by all biologists and biochemists, and it is not the only idea under consideration.

Despite the absurdity of their claims, the "scientific community" is convinced that all or most of these things took place

Even if it were true that the scientific community is of one mind on this issue (which, as I've noted, it isn't), describing claims as absurd doesn't make them so. If you wish to make a convincing argument for the absurdity of a claim, then you must present actual arguments; this sort of bald assertion is a waste of your time as well as mine.

#16 Joshua

Joshua

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Planet Earth

Posted 06 September 2005 - 01:50 AM

Life and water are two separate entities however it is safe to surmise that without water, life cannot exist. In this respect, water is life.

#17 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2005 - 04:37 AM

Here's a pretty good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about:

"The simplest life would require 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins. The probability for getting this vastly exceeds 1 chance in 10^150."

No stage magician could ever have successfully pulled a rabbit out of his hat without employing a technique known in the trade as misdirection. The idea is to keep the audience from looking at what you don't want them to look at by making sure their attention is on something else. Here, we are invited to visualize a very large number, and as long as we are busy watching the zeros run off the page, we probably won't notice the bogus assumption: that abiogenesis could only have been the result of a single-step process.


This is an exact tactic I see being used quite often at this forum (misdirection). I find myself often having to address it by showing how it is the norm for this answer, or question, to be used in a particular subject.

As far as saying said assumption is wrong. You would have to know all the parameters used to derive such a conclusion.

Though it may be a little hard to believe now, serious credence was once given to the idea of "spontaneous generation" (sometimes referred to as Aristotelian abiogenesis). Francesco Redi's experiment involving flies and wide-mouth jars containing meat put that idea to a much-needed rest in 1668 (or should have). Miller's experiments might be thought of as something of a correlate to that, and while his results showed that some of the essential ingredients for life are not so hard to come by, it wasn't all good news for anyone so optimistic as to suppose that the whole matter would turn out to be as simple as adding a bit of lightning. I'm not sure what it is that you are referring to as "cheating".


1) Filtering off the chemicals toxic to get the results he was looking for. How much actual amino acids were formed? 2%. So we have the 98% that has to be the perfect substance for life to emerge. But was it?
Tar (toxic to life) was in the 85% range.
Carboxylic acid (toxic to life) was in the 13% range.
So with the odds so far at 98% against, does it look like life?
By the way. Nature has no way of filtering, and separating these chemicals at the precise moment of their creation, in order for life to form from them.

2) And then there is the problem of oxygen (O2) gas. Oxygen gas is very inhospitable to small organic molecules. It tends to oxidize (read that burn) them back into CO2, N2, and H2O.

3) And then, just as life needed oxygen, from the supposed life that rose from the primordial soup. Suddenly, what would have destroyed it's beginnings, is now at just the right percentage for it to progress to the next stage?

4) But, Miller had another problem. Both left handed and right handed amino acids were formed in this experiment. Life only comes from left handed amino acids. And when right handed amino acids are present, it destroys the possibility of life to form from this brew of building blocks. So did Miller repeat his experiment to see if it could be done with only left handed amino acids being created? Nope. For even he knew the impossibility of it.

5) Then we have the electrical charge. Lightening would have needed to only strike once in that area of the soup, for a very long time. Because another strike would have torn apart the essential building blocks that were formed from the first strike.

So we started out with a 2% chance, and it went down hill from there. Is any of this written in any science book taught in our schools? Of course not. You cannot place any more doubt on a theory that is unprovable, someone might see the light of this. Can't have that.

There is scarcely anything regarding abiogenesis that deserves to be called a hypothesis; at this point, it's still pretty much all conjecture. But common to all of the popular conjectures is that they are searches for some kind of 'scaffolding'; some means by which the jump from non-life to life could have occurred incrementally. ID proponents prefer to ignore this, and pretend that they are claims for 'informational spontaneous generation'.

View Post


As I have shown with the Miller experiment, the odds and probability are more towards it not happening. Even given several billions of years. Because no one can say how exactly the right conditions, just at the right time occurred. Because of conditions, and the factor of time, with a changing earth that could not go back and try it again. There is really no way to even factor the odds or probability of it. For it only had a small window of time to happen. And the probability of things being just right, at the chance and time given, it don't work.

#18 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 06 September 2005 - 05:38 AM

Cal:
Here, we are invited to visualize a very large number, and as long as we are busy watching the zeros run off the page, we probably won't notice the bogus assumption: that abiogenesis could only have been the result of a single-step process.


Two things:

1) Please tell us why you think that the "bogus" assumption you mentioned was made.
2) Tell us why you think it is bogus.


Cal:
That abiogenesis occurred is accepted as self-evident.


That all depends on what is meant by <I>abiogenesis</I>. If abiogenesis means life arising from non-life via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, then abio is NOT self-evident.

On geo vs helio-centrcism:

Cal:
The Roman Catholic Church thought so too, and condemned the idea as being in direct contradiction to the Bible.


One more time- the "Church" did so because of the pressure put on it by the Aristoleans at the universities. IOW it was the academics who convinced the Church that this is what the Bible says.

#19 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2005 - 08:17 AM

View Post

Tar (toxic to life) was in the 85% range.
Carboxylic acid (toxic to life) was in the 13% range

"In the 85% range"? "In the 13% range"? Absent context, these numbers are devoid of meaning.


And then there is the problem of oxygen (O2) gas. Oxygen gas is very inhospitable to small organic molecules.

Earth's early atmosphere is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen.


...no one can say how exactly the right conditions, just at the right time occurred.

No one can even say exactly what the right conditions were.


Because of conditions, and the factor of time, with a changing earth that could not go back and try it again.

It might not be able to 'go back and try it again', but it could 'try' it many, many times simultaneously.


There is really no way to even factor the odds or probability of it.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Ditto the odds against it.




QUOTE:
Here, we are invited to visualize a very large number, and as long as we are busy watching the zeros run off the page, we probably won't notice the bogus assumption: that abiogenesis could only have been the result of a single-step process.

View Post

Two things:

1) Please tell us why you think that the "bogus" assumption you mentioned was made.

2) Tell us why you think it is bogus.

It's a strawman argument. Among the various conjectures currently being considered, none includes the proposition that genes and proteins sprang fully-formed into the world.


That all depends on what is meant by abiogenesis. If abiogenesis means life arising from non-life via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, then abio is NOT self-evident.

It may seem like a semantic quibble, but there is an important difference between a conjecture and an axiom. One of the axioms of science is that everything is the result of natural processes.


One more time- the "Church" did so because of the pressure put on it by the Aristoleans at the universities. IOW it was the academics who convinced the Church that this is what the Bible says.

I think this might be debatable as a historical point. If I considered it worth debating, I would probably begin by pointing out that the wording of the Genesis account rather unambiguously indicates a geocentric universe. I probably should have included Aristotle in my list of suspects in the crime of sowing confusion. I might provisionally accept your claim that the Roman Catholic Church had been influenced (though I question the degree to which it would have been likely to bow to 'pressure'), but I don't know that I could consider it less culpable because of that fact.

#20 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2005 - 06:29 PM

"In the 85% range"? "In the 13% range"? Absent context, these numbers are devoid of meaning.
Earth's early atmosphere is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen.
No one can even say exactly what the right conditions were.
It might not be able to 'go back and try it again', but it could 'try' it many, many times simultaneously.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Ditto the odds against it.
QUOTE:
Here, we are invited to visualize a very large number, and as long as we are busy watching the zeros run off the page, we probably won't notice the bogus assumption: that abiogenesis could only have been the result of a single-step process.
It's a strawman argument. Among the various conjectures currently being considered, none includes the proposition that genes and proteins sprang fully-formed into the world.
It may seem like a semantic quibble, but there is an important difference between a conjecture and an axiom. One of the axioms of science is that everything is the result of natural processes.
I think this might be debatable as a historical point. If I considered it worth debating, I would probably begin by pointing out that the wording of the Genesis account rather unambiguously indicates a geocentric universe. I probably should have included Aristotle in my list of suspects in the crime of sowing confusion. I might provisionally accept your claim that the Roman Catholic Church had been influenced (though I question the degree to which it would have been likely to bow to 'pressure'), but I don't know that I could consider it less culpable because of that fact.

View Post


Look, you can either look at the facts of the test, or you can waste my time nick picking at everything I have said, If your going to say that the percentages that I have shown are wrong (strawman), then say so, and show me where and how with "factual evidence". You accuse me of running numbers off a page. I accuse you of trying to derail facing the "factual evidence" that you can only question, but cannot prove wrong. Derailing this thread with this accusation, with no presented evidence, is wasting my time. So either come up with your rebutting evidence to prove the percents, and evidence I have presented wrong, or move on.

And If I find that the evidence you present has been fudged, or mis-quoted. Your membership here will be short lived. For I have no problem admitting to being wrong, and I expect others here to have the same attitude. So If you can prove it, then have at it. But, if you waste anymore of my time with these accusations, that you have yet to back up, again, your membership will be short lived.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users