Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

onceforgivennowfree

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 559Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post onceforgivennowfree

I don't know how many times I have tried to prove evolution to creationists over the last decade or so, nor how many venues I have used for that purpose. In this one forum alone, just in the last year, I tried it with swaggaboy_dna, Justice Frangipane, reasonablechristian, Gilbertus, TrueEmpiricism, Kanbei and someone from Craig's List. As you can see, they all followed the same pattern of dishonestly ducking-and-dodging every point or query necessary to prove the case. Because what they would rather pretend is more important to them than whatever is really true. So here's the next contender who will probably do the same, a YouTuber known as onceforgivennowfree.



Notice that his challenge is to "prove that evolution is a fact". OK, easy enough. But a moment later, he shows that he's not really asking for that at all. His challenge is really to prove that "life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design". Of course natural processes are not random, and do result in an incidental design, but he is clearly talking about a deliberate design for an intended purpose. His challenge is to disprove God. Proving that evolution is a fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates, or any of that nonsense. So these must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.

Kent Hovind did the same thing. He offered a $250,000.00 challenge to present "evidence of evolution". Easy, I do that every day. But then on the next page of that challenge, he said that he didn't really want evidence of evolution; instead his challenge was to disprove God. He said that what he was really asking for was proof that God couldn't have done it. His challenge required that we assume that a god exists, and then demands that we prove that a god who could do anything he wants couldn't have done this. Creationists have to defend logical fallacies by misquoting experts, misrepresenting data, and misdefining or misusing terms, and this challenge is another demonstration of that.

I will now address the YouTuber, OnceForgivenNowFree:

Sir, no one is "pressurized" into accepting reality, but if you're going to make challenges of logic, then you're going to have to understand it, and you'll have to acknowledge reality in order to play this game. I'll warn you now, it is impossible to defend creationism honestly.

Dawkins was right; it is easy enough to prove that evolution is a fact, and anyone who rejects that is at least ignorant, or misinformed, if not idiotic, dishonest, and/or insane. But explaining something this complex to someone like that has to be an interactive process. Otherwise we'll talk passed each other, because you still don't know what evolution is, and you evidently don't know what a fact is either. So you can't know what proof is, and neither do you understand logic well enough even to be reasoned with. You don't even know the difference between knowledge and belief. I can give you the answer you're looking for, but first you'll have to be educated enough to understand your own question.

I will accept both of your distinctly different challenges which you have posed as if they were one and the same. I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is actually factual and have you concede that I have. In so doing, I will also allow you to demonstrate the failure of the 2nd part of your challenge, your imagined mystic magically manipulating reality behind the scenes. But I will not submit any work for you to simply ignore and dismiss misunderstood and unconsidered. I will only explain this in a two-way conversation, right here in this thread, because I want to make sure you understand what I'm saying, and that you acknowledge each point as we progress. Ultimately I want to end your career as a YouTube creationist and collect your admission in writing as a matter of public record. Are you up to it?
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Last edited by AronRa on Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:17 pm
Dave B.Posts: 119Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Pressurized to believe in evolution? :lol:
Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:33 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

This is OFNF in a nut-shell:

Image
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:03 pm
WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3444Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DutchLiam84 wrote:This is OFNF in a nut-shell:

Image


Well, to be honest, that is not just onceforgivennowfree. That is every creationist that remains a creationist after seeing the evidence. The only way to remain a creationist after being exposed to the evidence is to willingly deceive one's self. Furthermore, the only way to defend creationism is to use dishonest tactics such as constructing strawmen.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:03 pm
YIM WWW
malicious_blokeUser avatarPosts: 305Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:12 pmLocation: Proper Westcountry Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
DutchLiam84 wrote:This is OFNF in a nut-shell:

Image


Well, to be honest, that is not just onceforgivennowfree. That is every creationist that remains a creationist after seeing the evidence. The only way to remain a creationist after being exposed to the evidence is to willingly deceive one's self. Furthermore, the only way to defend creationism is to use dishonest tactics such as constructing strawmen.


Indeed.

But OFNF is a fine example of the art. Slippery and deceitful to the last.
[sarcasm ][/sarcasm ]

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it
Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:57 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

It's true that most creationists do it. Heck, even within my own family. It is strange that people that seek (as they say) truth, care so little for what is actually true.

As MB says, OFNF is a prime example of the tactic. Over the years he has done multiple of these so called challenges for "evolutionists", but we all know the outcome. No matter what we present he will make up some bullshit argument and twist everything to intelligent design, trying to find "gotcha"-arguments. He almost wets his panties when an "evolutionist" uses the word "design". Somehow, this word got hijacked. The same goes for the word "kind".
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:51 pm
WWW
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 559Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

After this much time with no response from OnceForgivenNowFree, I almost feel like he might not have been completely sincere.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu May 01, 2014 10:17 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2651Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:After this much time with no response from OnceForgivenNowFree, I almost feel like he might not have been completely sincere.


He really does strike me as the more disingenuous type of creationist, rather than all-out boinkhead crazy.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3444Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:After this much time with no response from OnceForgivenNowFree, I almost feel like he might not have been completely sincere.


What do you expect? He was given a direct challenge and a verbal beat down in one week. Perhaps another reminder is needed before he gets over the shock of being caught in the crosshairs.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 01, 2014 10:31 pm
YIM WWW
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

So the challenge is proof evolution is a FACT?

The challenge onceforgivennowfree is providing.

Mister onceforgivennowfree wearing his glasses.

Cavemen did not have glasses!

OOPS,.... onceforgivennowfree just did not see the tiger that was stalking him!

Now onceforgivennowfree is dead.

And his stupid lack of eyesight has been eliminated from the genepool.

--

Need more evidence? Beside stupid questions?
Mon May 05, 2014 5:19 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3444Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Is it just me or is AronRa's challenge missing from onceforgivennowfree's comment section?

It appears my comment is also missing.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon May 05, 2014 5:19 pm
YIM WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Still listed under top comments.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Mon May 05, 2014 5:42 pm
WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3444Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DutchLiam84 wrote:Still listed under top comments.



Okay. Well, it is not showing up on my computer, it must be a glitch.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon May 05, 2014 5:52 pm
YIM WWW
OnceforgivennowfreePosts: 21Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 3:53 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Hey AronRa, I'm glad you're up for this challenge!

You didn't tell me you accepted this challenge, so I didn't know about it until I happened to come across some random comment on my channel pointing me here, and I was also on vacation last week so that's why I didn't respond immediately.

Anyway, I'm here. I made an account. I'll also be posting a video summary on my channel, since my viewers don't come here (except for a few exceptions perhaps). That way, we can all keep up with what's happening.

Here is the video for this installment should you want to watch it. My points will be re-iterated in the comments below.



“Notice that his challenge is to "prove that evolution is a fact". OK, easy enough. But a moment later, he shows that he's not really asking for that at all. His challenge is really to prove that "life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design". “


Well isn’t that more or less what you believe? That’s what I want you to prove. That life on earth is the result not of an intelligent agent, but of an ultimately blind process with no goal in mind. That’s basically what Evolutionists believe. I know there’s no single universally accepted definition, but that’s essentially what you believe, and I’m asking you to prove it.

You then go off an a tangent and put words in mouth:

“His challenge is to disprove God. Proving that evolution is a fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates, or any of that nonsense. So these must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.”


I don’t know where you got this from. No you don’t need to disprove God. I want you to keep all theological and religious arguments out of this. I just want science from you. That’s it. Prove Evolution. One challenge. You don’t need to treat this as two different challenges, because there is only one challenge. Prove Evolution. Use scientific facts and reasonable assumptions. I don’t know where you came up with this separate unrelated challenge. But whatever, moving on.

You went on with some insults, stating that:

“ So you can't know what proof is, and neither do you understand logic well enough even to be reasoned with. You don't even know the difference between knowledge and belief. I can give you the answer you're looking for, but first you'll have to be educated enough to understand your own question.”


I’ll just point out that you wrote an entire blog without even giving any evidence for Evolution. You’re starting off with personal attacks, and by insulting people who disagree with you. Why didn’t you just give us this proof you have? You claimed that it was easy to prove evolution, so do it! Just prove it! You can stop talking about how smart you are and how dumb everyone who disagrees with you is. It gets old. Can you just give us some proof?

As I said, you have to show that the design around us (or the apparent design, whatever you want to call it), can come about without an intelligent designer. You have to show that mutations and natural selection are capable of creating what you claim they created. You believe that mutations, be they point mutations, duplications, insertions, inversions, or whatever else, filtered by natural selection, can produce humans, fish, watermelons, and everything else. I’m not convinced that the mechanism that Neo-Darwinists propose is capable of doing what you claim it can. I’m a skeptic. Please show me the proof. I know that minds are capable of producing complex specified information, but are mutations and natural selection capable? I’m not convinced that they can even create a new gene or protein – never mind entire organisms. But that’s why you’re here. You can enlighten us all now.

So back to you AronRa. Show us the creative powers of your proposed mechanism.

You said proving evolution was easy. Show me your proof.

Waiting for Proof
-OnceForgivenNowFree
Fri May 09, 2014 6:29 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 559Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

So OnceForgivenNowFree finally responded...sort of.



First of all, he thinks I run this forum. Anyone agree with that?

He asked me to prove that "life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design", but even after reading my explanation, he doesn't understand how that necessarily means 'disproving God'. He says I put those words in his mouth. He's still clinging to his straw-man. He says I only need to prove evolution. But he still thinks 'evolution' = 'blind random processes'. He says I don't have to disprove God. Apparently I just have to disprove an intelligent purposeful designer using miraculous powers. He complains that I told him he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he proved that again, but he still complains that I haven't offered proof yet. He wants me to offer proof BEFORE we get started, before I can explain anything to him, so that he can understand what we're talking about.

I explained this before:
explaining something this complex to someone like that has to be an interactive process. Otherwise we'll talk passed each other, because you still don't know what evolution is, and you evidently don't know what a fact is either. So you can't know what proof is,
I guess that really is their game, being deliberately obtuse. It's like that line out of Futurama: "I don't understand evolution and I have to protect my kids from understanding it!"

Then he calls himself a skeptic. I think comedian would be more accurate.

OK, OnceForgivenStillDeceived, let's begin with some basic definitions. You're welcome to verify these if you think you should or could challenge them.

Supernatural: That which is assumed to be beyond nature and outside our reality, magical, miraculous, extraordinary, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics.
Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.
Skeptic: One who considers it foolish to accept extraordinary claims in lieu of sufficient evidence.
Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.
Evidence: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, only one available explanation over any other.
Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.
Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That “matter attracts matter” is a law of gravity.
Theory: (1) A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: *How* “matter attracts matter” is the theory of gravity.
Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] That which strongly shown to be true according to a preponderance of evidence.
Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

Do you acknowledge and accept these definitions?
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri May 09, 2014 11:20 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3444Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:First of all, he thinks I run this forum. Anyone agree with that?


Nope.

He also called this thread a blog. This is the blog section of this website.

AronRa wrote:Then he calls himself a skeptic. I think comedian would be more accurate.


He is a denialist. I find it insulting when denialists call themselves skeptics without actually understanding what it means to be a skeptic. It gives the actual skeptics a bad name.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri May 09, 2014 11:38 pm
YIM WWW
OnceforgivennowfreePosts: 21Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 3:53 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa,
I posted a comment, and it said it was waiting for approval. How come it doesn't show up? You already replied to me, yet my original comment doesn't show up. Am I missing something? I want to make sure this works before posting again. Thanks!
Sat May 10, 2014 12:04 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Onceforgivennowfree wrote:AronRa,
I posted a comment, and it said it was waiting for approval. How come it doesn't show up? You already replied to me, yet my original comment doesn't show up. Am I missing something? I want to make sure this works before posting again. Thanks!



Apologies, we maintain a spam-free forum by requiring a new user's first post to be approved by a moderator.

Welcome to LoR ;)



P.S. AronRa doesn't run this website.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sat May 10, 2014 12:10 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3444Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Onceforgivennowfree wrote:Waiting for Proof
-OnceForgivenNowFree


Seeing how evolution is change in allelic frequencies in a population over time, any observed speciation event should count as evidence enough for your challenge.

Observed Instances of Speciation.

The point of the above is to show that AronRa is not putting words in your mouth; you are indeed issuing two different challenges in your video. Otherwise, what I have posted above should count as evidence for evolution. Now we have to wait to see if you admit to this or hold fast to your strawman and expose it by shifting the goal posts.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat May 10, 2014 1:29 am
YIM WWW
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 559Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:“Notice that his challenge is to "prove that evolution is a fact". OK, easy enough. But a moment later, he shows that he's not really asking for that at all. His challenge is really to prove that "life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design".
Onceforgivennowfree wrote:Well isn’t that more or less what you believe? That’s what I want you to prove. That life on earth is the result not of an intelligent agent, but of an ultimately blind process with no goal in mind. That’s basically what Evolutionists believe.
Wrong. The 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism is that "evolution = atheism", and right now (as before) you're telling me to disprove God. Proving that evolution is a fact will not disprove the unsupported and unfalsifiable notion of an invisible magical designer behind the scenes. The 7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism is that "evolution is random". If you believe that "everything happens for a reason", then even those things which seem to you to be completely random disconnected coincidence would all have happened by [deliberate] design. That's why, statistically on the global scale, most 'evolutionists' are Christian, and most Christians are 'evolutionists'. The majority of common people generally accept the demonstrable realities of science while also holding onto some notion of supernatural guidance and influence.

Now there are certainly far less religious believers among scientists, (The more educated you are, the more likely you'll accept evolution, and the less likely you are to believe in gods) but the same holds true for many scientists too. For example, the following names are of devout Christians who are also Ph.D. evolutionary scientists, be it geology, biology, microbiology, paleontology, genetics, physics, or what have you.

Rev. Keith Miller
Rev. Robert T. Bakker
Prof. Kenneth Miller
Denis O. Lamoureux,
Prof. David N. Livingstone
Prof. Richard Colling
Francis Collins
Prof. Howard J. Van Till
Prof. Larry Arnhart
Prof. David L. Wilcox
Graeme Finlay
Prof. Donald Nield
Denis Edwards
Prof. John Polkinghorn
Prof. Stanley L. Jaki
Theodosius Dobzhansky

Each of these experts in their field are 'theistic evolutionists'. All of these men fully accept what evolution really is, but none of them accept what you say it is.

I know there’s no single universally accepted definition, but that’s essentially what you believe, and I’m asking you to prove it.
So here's the first thing you think you 'know' but that you don't really know. There is a single universally-accepted definition, the one I just gave you, and which I will repeat below:

You then go off an a tangent and put words in mouth:
“His challenge is to disprove God. Proving that evolution is a fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates, or any of that nonsense. So these must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.”
I don’t know where you got this from.
Now you do, or you should. Those words actually came out of your mouth, and I understood them better than you did.

No you don’t need to disprove God. I want you to keep all theological and religious arguments out of this. I just want science from you. That’s it. Prove Evolution. One challenge. You don’t need to treat this as two different challenges, because there is only one challenge. Prove Evolution. Use scientific facts and reasonable assumptions.
OK, I won't disprove God, but as a bonus, I might disprove creationism.

You went on with some insults, stating that:
“ So you can't know what proof is, and neither do you understand logic well enough even to be reasoned with. You don't even know the difference between knowledge and belief. I can give you the answer you're looking for, but first you'll have to be educated enough to understand your own question.”
I’ll just point out that you wrote an entire blog without even giving any evidence for Evolution.
And I explained why, when I said that "explaining something this complex to someone like that has to be an interactive process. Otherwise we'll talk passed each other, because you still don't know what evolution is". You keep missing that part. What that means is that I first have to teach you the subject before you could even understand what the evidence is.

As I said, you have to show that the design around us (or the apparent design, whatever you want to call it), can come about without an intelligent designer.
So you DO want me to disprove God in addition to proving evolution. Do make up your mind. Will it be one challenge? Or two?

And since you haven't answered these yet, even though I know you have seen them, do you accept the following definitions?

Supernatural: That which is assumed to be beyond nature and outside our reality, magical, miraculous, extraordinary, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics.
Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.
Skeptic: One who considers it foolish to accept extraordinary claims in lieu of sufficient evidence.
Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.
Evidence: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, only one available explanation over any other.
Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.
Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That “matter attracts matter” is a law of gravity.
Theory: (1) A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: *How* “matter attracts matter” is the theory of gravity.
Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] That which strongly shown to be true according to a preponderance of evidence.
Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

Answer me in your very next post. Do not think I will let you duck-and-dodge every point or query put to you. You will forfeit if you repeatedly ignore direct questions.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sat May 10, 2014 2:46 am
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests