Top | Newest First | Oldest First
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
No response from Godspeed63 - but that's normal.
He follows the Jehovah Witness technique of deception and misinformation and then running away and acting as if nothing happened.
Next comes the incredibly arrogant, and totally unsupported, claim that he knows some sort of ultimate truth. After all, if you're going to tell lies, you might as well make them big lies.
He follows the Jehovah Witness technique of deception and misinformation and then running away and acting as if nothing happened.
Next comes the incredibly arrogant, and totally unsupported, claim that he knows some sort of ultimate truth. After all, if you're going to tell lies, you might as well make them big lies.
View 134 more replies »
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sree251 [quote]the observer had vanished[/quote]
The rainbow existed only in the observer's occipital lobe... no observer, no rainbow.
If it helps, here's a hint to guide you towards reality... your pupils are round.
Then again, I suspect that reality is the [i]last[/i] thing you want to encounter.
The rainbow existed only in the observer's occipital lobe... no observer, no rainbow.
If it helps, here's a hint to guide you towards reality... your pupils are round.
Then again, I suspect that reality is the [i]last[/i] thing you want to encounter.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 [quote] The rainbow existed only in the observer's occipital lobe... no observer, no rainbow. [/quote]
I know what you are talking about. It was explained me in school by the physics teacher. Light traveling from object (i.e. rainbow) to the eye, hits the retina, and the nerves cells transmit the image to the brain (occipital lobe?). I lived with that bullshit all my life as a human being living on planet Earth. By the way, the eclipse of the sun is happening tomorrow when the moon gets between us on Earth and the sun. This is a witch doctor story that you accept as science. I don't need to understand the peculiar phenomenon. It is a wondrous mystery. I would rather invest my energy to figuring out why we keep killing one another in endless wars.
[quote] If it helps, here's a hint to guide you towards reality... your pupils are round. [/quote]
My pupils? The eyes are in the human body. I am not the body, and the body is not me. Get it?
[quote] Then again, I suspect that reality is the last thing you want to encounter. [/quote]
Reality that you encounter is no longer mine. I see the truth about material reality. I dwell in it as long as the body is alive, but I am not of it. Don't try to understand what I am saying. You can't.
I know what you are talking about. It was explained me in school by the physics teacher. Light traveling from object (i.e. rainbow) to the eye, hits the retina, and the nerves cells transmit the image to the brain (occipital lobe?). I lived with that bullshit all my life as a human being living on planet Earth. By the way, the eclipse of the sun is happening tomorrow when the moon gets between us on Earth and the sun. This is a witch doctor story that you accept as science. I don't need to understand the peculiar phenomenon. It is a wondrous mystery. I would rather invest my energy to figuring out why we keep killing one another in endless wars.
[quote] If it helps, here's a hint to guide you towards reality... your pupils are round. [/quote]
My pupils? The eyes are in the human body. I am not the body, and the body is not me. Get it?
[quote] Then again, I suspect that reality is the last thing you want to encounter. [/quote]
Reality that you encounter is no longer mine. I see the truth about material reality. I dwell in it as long as the body is alive, but I am not of it. Don't try to understand what I am saying. You can't.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@TheWildEcho Some are pretty entertaining some very nice actually. You do post about other things which is good.
jehova · 31-35, M
@TheWildEcho or capitalism's falasies
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Umm... you seem to have offered only [i]part[/i] of the quote from Darwin.
[quote]To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. [/quote]
and now we see that you have tried to [b]mislead[/b] everyone.
We see that you are being [b]duplicitous[/b] and [b]dishonest[/b].
Why, then, should anyone believe [i]anything[/i] you say?
[quote]To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. [/quote]
and now we see that you have tried to [b]mislead[/b] everyone.
We see that you are being [b]duplicitous[/b] and [b]dishonest[/b].
Why, then, should anyone believe [i]anything[/i] you say?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 So your magical entity allows you to speak on its behalf. Is that because it's frightened by public speaking
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]So your magical entity allows you to speak on its behalf. Is that because it's frightened by public speaking[/quote]
If that's what you believe, then you are lying to yourself and to others.
If that's what you believe, then you are lying to yourself and to others.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 So, your magical entity [i]doesn't[/i] allow you to speak on its behalf?
Is that what you're saying?
Is that what you're saying?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400F. Supp. 2d707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
JudgeJohn E. Jones III
Justice Jones wrote (in part):
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
1. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is [b]nothing less than the progeny of creationism[/b].
2. The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, [b]a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory[/b].
3. [b]ID is not science[/b].
4. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:
(a) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
(b) the argument ofirreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same [b]flawed and illogical contrived dualism[/b] that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and
(c) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
You creatonists had a wonderful opportunity... in open court... to prove your claims, yet all you did was obfuscate and whine and tell, to quote Justice Jones verbatim, [b]"lies under oath"[/b]
But then again, disingenuity, deception, and lies, don't seem to be problems for creationists... or are they a Jehovah's Witness specialty?
Let's look at some more of your video offerings in this post...
JudgeJohn E. Jones III
Justice Jones wrote (in part):
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
1. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is [b]nothing less than the progeny of creationism[/b].
2. The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, [b]a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory[/b].
3. [b]ID is not science[/b].
4. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:
(a) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
(b) the argument ofirreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same [b]flawed and illogical contrived dualism[/b] that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and
(c) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
You creatonists had a wonderful opportunity... in open court... to prove your claims, yet all you did was obfuscate and whine and tell, to quote Justice Jones verbatim, [b]"lies under oath"[/b]
But then again, disingenuity, deception, and lies, don't seem to be problems for creationists... or are they a Jehovah's Witness specialty?
Let's look at some more of your video offerings in this post...
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
There are no authorities in science... what any individual believes is irrelevant, and [i]carries no weight.[/i]
Evidence... [b]show me the evidence[/b].
That's why since 1662 the motto of the Royal Society has been [i]'Nullius in Verba'[/i] (take nobody's word for it).
It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority.
Evidence... [b]show me the evidence[/b].
That's why since 1662 the motto of the Royal Society has been [i]'Nullius in Verba'[/i] (take nobody's word for it).
It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority.
FreakLikeMe · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2 Very well said.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 @FreakLikeMe [quote]There are no authorities in science.[/quote]
None except One, God is the Author of science.
[quote]Evidence... show me the evidence.[/quote]
You've been shown the evidence a number of times but will not accept it as evidence.
None except One, God is the Author of science.
[quote]Evidence... show me the evidence.[/quote]
You've been shown the evidence a number of times but will not accept it as evidence.
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
If god is the author of science, why do you keep denying it ? He left the evidence so we can understand it. There is no evidence to supports ID. So that would suggest that he considers natural processes like evolution more practical, than unreliable supernatural methods.
You’re denouncing god’s work by criticizing the scientific method.
If god is the author of science, why do you keep denying it ? He left the evidence so we can understand it. There is no evidence to supports ID. So that would suggest that he considers natural processes like evolution more practical, than unreliable supernatural methods.
You’re denouncing god’s work by criticizing the scientific method.
Intelligent Design is like a cheating meme, it makes complex processes look simple.
That been said many people, whether they're actual scientists or not, and whether they are atheists or not, are impressed by the creative and to be honest cynical intelligence of natural evolution, and the fact that we are able to grasp some of it, is also something to be ravished about.
That been said many people, whether they're actual scientists or not, and whether they are atheists or not, are impressed by the creative and to be honest cynical intelligence of natural evolution, and the fact that we are able to grasp some of it, is also something to be ravished about.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@OogieBoogie when you can logically refute what I said you can get back to me.
OogieBoogie · F
@hippyjoe1955 when you can be decent and non derogatory and imsulting , you can get back to [b]me[/b]
OogieBoogie · F
@hippyjoe1955 actually, scratcg that.
You're not nice, you're mean, and i dont care for that.
Your god can have you
You're not nice, you're mean, and i dont care for that.
Your god can have you
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
The Dawkins clip is particularly disingenuous.
Dawkins mentions that panspermia (life being transferred to Earth from life elsewhere) is a possibility, and some voiceover immediately says:
"wait a minute, Richard Dawkins said that 'intelligent design' might be a legitimate pursuit?"
No, he didn't.
Dawkins than points out that the source of that life would itself have needed to arise and evolve by ultimately explicable means... no magical entities allowed... and that's followed by a voiceover saying:
"So Professor Dawkins is not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers such as god".
Did you miss the bit immediately above saying that panspermic life would itself have needed to arise and evolve by ultimately explicable means... no magical entities allowed?
That's because 'god did it' isn't an explanation of anything... [b]it doesn't even explain itself[/b] 😂
Dawkins mentions that panspermia (life being transferred to Earth from life elsewhere) is a possibility, and some voiceover immediately says:
"wait a minute, Richard Dawkins said that 'intelligent design' might be a legitimate pursuit?"
No, he didn't.
Dawkins than points out that the source of that life would itself have needed to arise and evolve by ultimately explicable means... no magical entities allowed... and that's followed by a voiceover saying:
"So Professor Dawkins is not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers such as god".
Did you miss the bit immediately above saying that panspermic life would itself have needed to arise and evolve by ultimately explicable means... no magical entities allowed?
That's because 'god did it' isn't an explanation of anything... [b]it doesn't even explain itself[/b] 😂
DocSavage · M
[quote] [b] Why Is It So Hard For Mankind To Accept The Truth Of God On Intellegent Design? [/b][/quote]
For the simple fact : Evolution works.
Intelligent design has no evidence, no explanatory power, whatsoever. It tells us nothing of the how and why. You can deny evolution, but it fits nonetheless. We know the how, we know the why. We can even control it to a degree that allows predictions.
Why would you drop something that works, for a hypothesis that has nothing to offer ?
For the simple fact : Evolution works.
Intelligent design has no evidence, no explanatory power, whatsoever. It tells us nothing of the how and why. You can deny evolution, but it fits nonetheless. We know the how, we know the why. We can even control it to a degree that allows predictions.
Why would you drop something that works, for a hypothesis that has nothing to offer ?
sree251 · 41-45, M
@JimboSaturn [quote] I have a choice how I feel and react to life. It is the only thing I can control.
[/quote]
True. This is how we collectively work our way into a pickle: living in a material world of eternal conflict and insecurity.
[/quote]
True. This is how we collectively work our way into a pickle: living in a material world of eternal conflict and insecurity.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@sree251 You should read some stoic philosophy.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Richard65 · M
Instead of enjoying Easter Sunday in reverence and celebration of the most important day in the Christian calendar, you instead choose to focus on your desperate campaign to vilify non-believers and make your pitiful arguments. Today of all days.
This goes to prove that you're not actually a true Christian, but, as I always suspected, you're simply an agitator who enjoys instigating spats online for your own gratification.
This goes to prove that you're not actually a true Christian, but, as I always suspected, you're simply an agitator who enjoys instigating spats online for your own gratification.
Then they would have to believe there is a God and they don't want to do that. The Bible says they want to believe a lie, rather than Jesus. Which is a shame because we can now obviously see that the Lord is coming soon.
Scientists hold a wide range of positions about religion. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a primordial creator or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs. Science does not disprove the existence of God. if you believe in God, it doesn't matter what scientists discover about the universe – the cosmos bear witness to God.
Scientists hold a wide range of positions about religion. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a primordial creator or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs. Science does not disprove the existence of God. if you believe in God, it doesn't matter what scientists discover about the universe – the cosmos bear witness to God.
QueenOfZaun · 26-30, F
sree251 · 41-45, M
@QueenOfZaun [quote] I say, that good and evil is a human construct that varies widely from culture to culture and person to person. Different people have different opinions on what is evil. Different cultures have different standards. Different religions have different explanations. [/quote]
Killing people is evil. Jesus said that we must not kill. No exceptions. We must turn the other cheek no matter what.
[quote] Hence their is so much debate on what exactly is good and evil. [/quote]
Killing people is evil. What is there to debate? Don't eat shit. End of story.
[quote] Out of the hundreds of thousands of religions that have existed on this planet, you think you just so happened to have picked the right one? [/quote]
The right religious teaching is consistent with that of Jesus. He said to stop killing one another. Turn the other cheek. Our predisposition is to kill each other. It is a tendency bred into us by the Devil.
Killing people is evil. Jesus said that we must not kill. No exceptions. We must turn the other cheek no matter what.
[quote] Hence their is so much debate on what exactly is good and evil. [/quote]
Killing people is evil. What is there to debate? Don't eat shit. End of story.
[quote] Out of the hundreds of thousands of religions that have existed on this planet, you think you just so happened to have picked the right one? [/quote]
The right religious teaching is consistent with that of Jesus. He said to stop killing one another. Turn the other cheek. Our predisposition is to kill each other. It is a tendency bred into us by the Devil.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@QueenOfZaun Telling you to not kill people is a waste of time? Are you the Devil?
AbbySvenz · F
🍒
Here is Darwin’s quote in full context:
[quote]To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of [i]Vox populi, vox De[/i]i, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.[/quote]
Here is Darwin’s quote in full context:
[quote]To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of [i]Vox populi, vox De[/i]i, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.[/quote]
LeopoldBloom · M
If it's so obvious, why hasn't God just made an appearance? Instead, it's all this innuendo and inference that could be more easily explained by natural processes.
I'll answer my own question. If God were to appear in a way that everyone could acknowledge, there wouldn't be any need for faith, because everything would be clearly revealed. Kierkegaard said that the man who succeeded in proving God's existence beyond any doubt whatsoever, by doing so would have destroyed Christianity, which ultimately requires belief without proof.
I'll answer my own question. If God were to appear in a way that everyone could acknowledge, there wouldn't be any need for faith, because everything would be clearly revealed. Kierkegaard said that the man who succeeded in proving God's existence beyond any doubt whatsoever, by doing so would have destroyed Christianity, which ultimately requires belief without proof.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
twistedrope · 26-30, M
sree251 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 [quote] I'll paraphrase for you: [/quote]
You clarification is appreciated. You are not invested in trying to get what the OP is saying and confirming that you do have a heart of stone.
You clarification is appreciated. You are not invested in trying to get what the OP is saying and confirming that you do have a heart of stone.
twistedrope · 26-30, M
@newjaninev2 I mean your explanation was close. It's more like, I have not independently come up with the idea of a god from any experience in my life I have ever had. I have only ever heard it from other people. Yeh.
ElwoodBlues · M
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
sree251 · 41-45, M
I accept intelligent design but not a designer.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@sree251 do you have no idea what an oxymoron is there can be no design without a designer. What you want is a very lucky accident.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 [quote] do you have no idea what an oxymoron is there can be no design without a designer. [/quote]
I know that it is hard to understand what I said. Nature is not man-made. The sun is not man-made. Artificial things that are not natural are made by us using our reasoning. Scientists have been trying to figure out how natural things come about? How can two different human cells (sperm cell and egg cell) come together, fuse to become a third totally different cell that divides itself repeatedly to form other different types of cells ( bone cell, muscle cell, skin cell, brain cells,etc) that arrange themselves into a human body.
Look, I am not some goddam idiot who dismisses nature as something comprehensible and can be explained by scientists and priests.
I know that it is hard to understand what I said. Nature is not man-made. The sun is not man-made. Artificial things that are not natural are made by us using our reasoning. Scientists have been trying to figure out how natural things come about? How can two different human cells (sperm cell and egg cell) come together, fuse to become a third totally different cell that divides itself repeatedly to form other different types of cells ( bone cell, muscle cell, skin cell, brain cells,etc) that arrange themselves into a human body.
Look, I am not some goddam idiot who dismisses nature as something comprehensible and can be explained by scientists and priests.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
DocSavage · M
If god is the alpha and the omega. And can see past , present, and future.
Why then does evolution exist ? We know from the fossil record, that life forms have changed greatly or have gone extinct.
Why didn’t god just settle on one design, suitable for the long run ? It’s not like he couldn’t see what was coming. Why the constant upgrades ?
Why then does evolution exist ? We know from the fossil record, that life forms have changed greatly or have gone extinct.
Why didn’t god just settle on one design, suitable for the long run ? It’s not like he couldn’t see what was coming. Why the constant upgrades ?
OogieBoogie · F
@jehova and we still have so much yet [b]to[/b] learn and understand - who is to say that we currently understand it the correct way ?
We are still babes when it comes to ages of civilizations🤷
We are still babes when it comes to ages of civilizations🤷
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jehova · 31-35, M
@OogieBoogie i agree exactly
DeluxedEdition · 26-30, F
BlueSkyKing · M
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@BlueSkyKing I applied that to myself and became a Christian. It was the only logical option left to me.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@JimboSaturn That's a great article! Thank you for sharing.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Morvoren and you know this how again?
windinhishair · 61-69, M
AlchemyFox · 36-40, F
A lot people, myself included, recognize there is something more. But Christianity is not the only belief with truth to it. Or lies.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
OogieBoogie · F
Interestingly, Nineveh is also where the ancient tablets of the Enuma Elish, also known as 'The Seven Tablets of Creation', were found.
They predate the Bible, which incidentally borrows elements from for its Creation stories.
So many similarities between the creation story of the ancient gods of Sumeria and the later Judean one.
They predate the Bible, which incidentally borrows elements from for its Creation stories.
So many similarities between the creation story of the ancient gods of Sumeria and the later Judean one.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@OogieBoogie and you have no idea if any of their sagas are true. GWB said that Iraq had wmd. If 2000 years from now you found a document saying that do you believe it or not? It has since been shown that GWB was sparing the truth.
OogieBoogie · F
@hippyjoe1955 ok, im not going to debate this idea if you bring the idiocy of recent politics into this.
If you cant hold any validity to the correlation of ancient texts to other archeological sciences then you are basically claiming that all ancient information perviously written is false .
And that includes your Bible.
This is pointless 🙄
If you cant hold any validity to the correlation of ancient texts to other archeological sciences then you are basically claiming that all ancient information perviously written is false .
And that includes your Bible.
This is pointless 🙄
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@OogieBoogie I am using it as an example. Age does not determine accuracy. A falsehood writing 5000 years ago is still a falsehood. The truth revealed 2000 years ago is still the truth.
DoctorCrazypants · 100+, M
There is no god just humans who want to make us all puppets
jehova · 31-35, M
Evidence is not proof
jehova · 31-35, M
@hippyjoe1955 i review evidence to determine proof necessary to confirm or refute. I will consider all relevant evidence before drawing a conclusion. Will you?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@jehova sure you. Lol
jehova · 31-35, M
@hippyjoe1955 i review both sides before drawing a conclusion. Then i double check my assumptions review again trying to prove my first conclusion wrong. I even run a triple check with my dad or mom to reconsider my evidence based conclusion; and check for typos. Do you?
jehova · 31-35, M
Only intelligence questions doubts and refutes as well as proves itself. The data is ongoing.
FreakLikeMe · 56-60, M
The blind see beauty? Exactly how does that work?
BohemianBoo · M
SethGreene531 · M
.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
