It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists - Explain this please

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus

I never said ALL religious people are "certifiable kooks," I specifically said religious FUNDAMENTALISTS!


Is that so? and what are you hot shot, the alternative? PfffT


(Please read more carefully before blasting someone for what they did not say. It only hurts your own credibility.


According to who? You? Obviously wilson doesn't seek your approval.


What is wrong with SPECULATION? Dawkins clearly was SPECULATING!


It makes LOUSY evidence smart guy, and that is why it isn't alowed in a court of law. They want FACTS not conjecture, not someones "best guess" or their Atheist Biased opinion ESPECIALLY That Zoo Keeper Dick Dawkins.


The most valuable part of the scientific method is using the results to make accurate predictions. Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories because of the enormous number of accurate predictions it has made.


Enormous? wow by next week it should reach humongous or perhaps gargantuan, or mega massive? mmmmm would you be so kind as to give me just a small sample?

Oh and by the way, here is the real skinny on the "Scientific Method"


It's difficult to think clearly about the magical "scientific method" -- it may seem simple but actually quite complicated. It is supposed to be a general schema that explains for all sciences in all stages of their development how theories depend on evidence. This problem is harder than general epistemology (where you just have to make sense of how anyone can know anything): www.dharma-haven.org...



The Myth of the Magical Scientific Method
by Dr. Terry Halwes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedure that gets taught as "The Scientific Method" is entirely misleading. Studying what scientists actually do is far more interesting
www.dharma-haven.org...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is their such a thing as the Scientific Method?

No -- not if what you mean is a unique method that all scientists use and that is rarely used in non-scientific reasoning. In a companion essay I offer a discussion of exactly this issue, in a section titled "No Special Method is Required."
www.dharma-haven.org...



The Myth of Scientific Method
- Facts and Tests Depend upon
Theory and Prior Belief
This discussion focuses on the nature of 'facts' as portrayed in the method
story (fig 1 - method diagram). We shall attack the story of method at two
weak points--the beginning where we supposedly observe the given facts of
nature, and near the end where we test an hypothesis against the facts of
nature. If facts are not so simple nor given as the story pretends, then we have
to re-think whether the story of method is acceptable and ask again what
really does occur in science.
FIGURE 1 STORY OF METHOD
hypothesis
report
generalise
(induction)
observe
Nature=
System of
given fact
Test vs
Nature
deduce
prediction
Test OK
hypothesis law
Test not OK
Start over
Now, essentially the question we should ask ourselves is:
"What if these mythically pure facts are not really available? What if
all our reports and observations depend critically on the state of the
knowledge, belief, commitment, goals, values which we take with us
into the observing/testing situation? What if 'facts' are partially
constructed by us" through our observing and reporting procedures,
and this cannot be otherwise?"
hist-phil.arts.unsw.edu.au...




Scientists, including evolutionists, have no opinion on the existence or non-existence of any alleged God. Many scientists, including many evolutionist, are indeed religious people who see no conflict. It is purely a personal choice that may not be coerced.
No one has ever produced any evidence that can be tested one way or the other for a "God." It requires the wholesale abandonment of reason and logic, which happens to be
The Wedge document exposed the conspiracy behind the ID movement. They are a congregation of LIARS!


Well I gotta tell ya,, you sound like every religious extremist dogmatic zealot I have ever seen at any traveling evangelical salvation show tent

I won't even bother counting the numerous inaccuracies their are in your post from what you think you know about Science to the bastardized versions of history and religious info you obviously googled off some Atheist hate site that passes that crap off as fact.

Your argumentative nature is full of enthusiasm which I admire but doesn't say much for your ability to argue.

- Con





[edit on 21-6-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by iesus_freak

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Hey, the religious are'nt the only ones to claim that stuff just poofed into existence. How is the big bang theory any different to stuff just poofing into existences.

The Big Bang theory doesn't postulate that the universe and everything within just *poofed* into existence. We just don't know what happened before the Big Bang. There's really no way we can tell at this time, so it's usually just glossed over as an unanswered question. However we have observed that the universe is expanding at a phenomenal rate. So if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. Go back far enough, and it becomes a singular point.

That's all, really.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Lasheic]
that would make the singular pnt youre god and youre creator and where did he come from our god was created by himself this is possible by the science of Quantum mechanics


Actually, scientists have an idea, because of the matter distribution within the universe, that this universe was a product of another universe. A seepage, perhaps.

How does nothing create something? To create itself would imply that the neccessaries were already in place. That means God was of another form prior to making itself the God we don't know now. So, if God was of another form apriori to God, he would still need to be created by something! Perhaps he's an ever evolving God?
By stating that the universe (from singularity to infinity) is God, is Pantheism. That I can agree with.


Quantum electro-dynamics does not indicate anything of the sort that you imply.

I have a quick question for the creationists; if God made all the animals, why did he only create 2 blood types? I mean, look at the variety of species on out planet! You would have thought that he would have used more than just 2 types for their blood, surely? He could have used as many types as he wanted, so why just 2? Why not give every species it's own type? And what's up with all the creatures having 5 digits on one limb? Is he trying to mess with out heads or what?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Con, you're getting more and more incoherant and confrontational with each passing day.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by cruzion
 


That's not exactly true. We can only observe a tiny part of the universe, as it takes light (or any electromagnetic radiation) time to travel, and as the universe is only 15bn years old, it means we can only see 15bn light years away. If the universe is more than 15bn light years across, then parts of it will remain unseen until we can travel "faster" than the speed of light (if we ever manage it). So, any time anyone says anything about "our universe", chances are they mean "our universe, which we have extrapolated from the observable bubble of universe we reside in".

Not that the notion somehow disproves science and proves god or anything, but it's an interesting aspect of our universe none-the-less.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


No need for attacks.

You make a valid point but at the same time you are following something that is not yet complete. Evolution is a theory regardless of the evidence. Scientists are yet to prove how one single organism over 4.5 billion years evolved into us, nature, over 300,000 different species with different traits, characteristics, and abilities, extinct species, and etc.

I am not a creationist nor do I follow evolution. You can say I will make up my mind when either Jesus comes back or the whole evolution theory as a full fact and not a theory anymore.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


There is no such thing as a scientific fact, so I suggest you stop believing in gravity or that water is wet - they are theories, too. What we call a theory in everyday language is known in scientific circles as a hypothesis, which is what creationism is. Evolution has passed that and become a theory, by having lots of supporting evidence, and lots of experiments that yield consistent results that all suggest evolution happens. Not one shred of evidence, not one solitary artifact, not one animal, not one gene, not one cell, not one fossil, not one anything has even suggested that evolution is not true, regardless of what any fundamentalist says. Creationism, on the other hand, is still a hypothesis because it has not got a single piece of evidence to suggest it is real.

Deny ignorance. Accept objectivity. Accept evolution.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


You can not be further then the truth. Water is wet...a scientific theory? No it is a fact based upon our perceptions. We make facts based on perceptions. That is the same as saying fire being hot is a theory not a fact. We feel the heat therefore our perception labels it a fact.

If it is not a fact then who chooses what are facts and what are theories? In this mind state religious people will always be right and so will Atheists, which will contradict the whole world we live in.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


And clearly you don't know what "theory" means in a scientific context. It sure would help you to at least know that before going off on one.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Con, you're getting more and more incoherant and confrontational with each passing day.


How do do you know it isn't you having a problem comprehending at a time when you are ultra sensitive?

Something I say to you cruszion that got yours in a bunch or are you just getting confrontational?

Share with me cruzion?

I care

- Con



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Equinox99
 


And clearly you don't know what "theory" means in a scientific context. It sure would help you to at least know that before going off on one.



Equinox just got the Dave form letter post lol

Dave it is you who "Clearly" has lost his grasp for the english language most likely due to all the obfuscation you have to keep up with as a Darwinist .

Example:



Do you know how many quotes I have of you telling me that evolution is a Scientific FACT?

Then why do you tell equinox nothing in science is a fact?

- Con

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
[. Not one shred of evidence, not one solitary artifact, not one animal, not one gene, not one cell, not one fossil, not one anything has even suggested that evolution is not true


. Not one shred of evidence, not one solitary artifact, not one animal, not one gene, not one cell, not one fossil, not one anything has even suggested that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either

See Dave,, it's not what the evidence proves evolution IS, that holds us back from believing in it.

it's what the evidence proves evolution is NOT

sheesh

- con

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I often wonder if Greys are from our future. That being they are indeed evolved from Humans and have developed a level of technology that allows them to travel back through time to ensure their own survival.

That would be where the Novelty comes in, and the Universe is a novelty-conserving engine. Therefore should we assume that intergalactic travels is possible, we must also then presuppose that time travel is also possible as both are ideas so far removed from Levels of Novelty currently allowed withing the limitations of our Space/Time.

We currently do not know whether or not Artificial intelligence is possible, but surely when it comes into existence a New period of novelty will have been entered. We could then rightly assume that both the problems of time and space travel will be solved with the aid of this new Entity.

The AI will then create advanced simulations of the Universe and Calculate that 'Human' Time travelers are indeed responsible for the inexplicable changes in the Humanoids on this planet over the past 500 000 years - changes pointing towards an unavoidable conclusion.... That Mankind is a Genetic Experiment perpetually conducting itself as a Direct Result of the Laws of the Inverse Square and the Conservation of novelty.

There is proof that I may be right.

The Proof of Genetic Engineering with our Genome is evident in the number of genetic flaws Humans have that no afflict no other species - including the Primates. The evidence for my theory is abundant. Just look at our chromosomes;

This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.

...and we're forgetting genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?

Quite often, the foods (especially plants) we eat are created using genetic modification BETWEEN species, often flora and fauna are combined;
This is Real Intelligent Design, not to be mistaken for the nonsense spewed forth by the creationists, and far more accommodating than the rigid doctrine of the Darwinists and some evolutionists.

...So Any animal or Plant who's genes have been rearranged by humans in a way that could not have occurred in nature (ie non-technologically) is without any doubt the product of intelligent design - can both sides at least agree on this particular definition of intelligent design?

Edit: If scientists were so sure that the theory of evolution could be shown to be a "Fact" they would have done it all ready thousands of times using the scientific method - It would then be called The Law of Evolution

Who ever heard of the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Thermo-Dynamics? They are termed as 'Laws' for a reason...


[edit on 22-6-2008 by doctormcauley]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Are you trying to not make sense on purpose? What are you blathering about?

There is a shedload of evidence supporting evolution. There is no evidence supporting creationism.

That is not my problem, but yours, or more specifically, your chosen belief structure's problem. I can't help it if you're so weak-willed you lap up what people tell you without evidence. Humanity didn't get this far without evidence. Without the scietific method you wouldn't have the computer you're using at the moment. Strange how you're fine with science when it's not contradicting your beliefs, but as soon as it does, you try to strike it down, while conveniently letting it slide on things that actually benefit you.

Cognitive dissonance. It's what's for dinner.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Oh my, Conspirology, you must be feeling much better now after expelling all that!

What predictions? Well, here's a start:
chem.tufts.edu...

www.washingtonpost.com...

When you include geology, biochemistry and all the other overlapping fields that didn't even exist in Chuckies day, then evolution really does become "gynormous."

And just what is "dharma-haven.org" anyways, one angry guy blogging in his underwear? They don't even bother to say who it is. Must not be important.

Thanks for the laugh. Your "Story" of the "Myth of Scientific Method," is simply hilarious. Besides being out of order and not like any I have ever seen before, the "Test OK > hypothesis > Law," is simply criminally wrong.

You are confused. No one ever claimed science is infallible. In fact it is the failures that lead to better understanding. It is the Bible that is claimed to be infallible.

Maybe you could be good enough to explain the method for interpreting the Bible. Oh, that's right. THERE IS NONE!
Why is it only the Biblical creation myth that is acceptable to creationists? Why not the Hindu, Hopi, or any of the thousands of others?

It is not enough to just sit on the sidelines and just throw stones. If you have found a better method, then please announce it.
If you have so many problems with specific scientific studies, why don't you publish your own papers exposing the obvious flaws. There is tremendous competition among scientists. There is no shortage of fresh young grad students breathing down their neck hoping to make their bones superceding existing understandings by improving on them.


You want evidence of LIES? How about starting with the Wedge Document and the FACT that the Dover decision was not appealed?:
en.wikipedia.org...

If it was not a conspiracy, then why label it "Top Secret, not for distribution?" I can understand why secrecy must be such an important component of ID. The Vatican can't afford to make their basement archives available to just anyone!

There is just no polite way to tell a retarded person that they are retarded.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

Are you trying to not make sense on purpose? What are you blathering about?


All the evidence does not disprove creationism Dave, none of the fossils creationists have disprove creationism.



That is not my problem, but yours, or more specifically, your chosen belief structure's problem.


Don't concern yourself Dave, I don't see it as a problem so why should you? In fact, Creation is so easy to prove all you have to do is look in the mirror. If you want any observable evidence, their is this old Book that says something about you carrying the seed of your kind.

Now should you ever meet a female, or, one that would assist you in this experiment, (I believe you can find some on craigs list but you might have to shop around) now I won't go into the details of how you "plant your seed" but I am sure whoever you employ enlisting her services, I am sure she will know the steps for this experiment. Now barring any unforseen barriers for the transport of Dave Seedlings and the approx 2 mins start to finish estimate for the necessary exercises required to bring about the proof to it's biological fruition. I, with Everest size compiled Data and evidence can predict within 9 mos a new life form will evolve.

It is reliable, testable, observable and we can usually predict with almost pin point accuracy. It's called "Pro-Creation" Dave and it has been getting more creationist everyday. Soon we will be able to customize so many more options and choices for the outcome that it gets downright man made intelligent design so apparently intelligent design will just over take natural selection inlieu of intelligent direction. We see intelligent design evolved and made intelligent bipedal humans which by some stroke of whacked out random chance mutation and natural selection, it came up with a brain that is so amazing it can't even create a copy USING INTELLIGENCE much less Darwinian dumb luck mutation evolution.

Imagine That!

hehe anyway ID and creationism will be proven once again by evolution and eventually given enough time as intelligence takes millions of years to evolve, the intellgent beings will find a way a new function if you will whereby using silica we will utlize it to make chips for a by product of our evoltionary intellect called tecnology which will break bring us past behe's edge of evolution and we will get even smarter faster, eventually embeding the chips made of sand in our very highly evolved brains which in turn will make sexual selection much more controlled with pre determined and well regulated biological results furthering the new genetic information untill evolution is abruptly controled by the new creationist species of human which by that time will have an entirely new and better replacement for the old DNA clay that happenstance and cosmic coincedence had been using for millions of years.

We will then start stocking planets with self perpetuating life force fluids which will automatically create diverse life forms on other planets without us having to meddel in it much because of the simply elegant and ingenious mechanism inherant in the primordial soups we deposit on the other planets where they continue to mutate until the mutations find a niche and begin to flourish using their own natural automatic selection processes. This will ensure the survival, not of any silly species, as we are far past the bigotry of that kind of prejudice or specism. No whet we end up doing is survival of LIFE itself in all it's aimless rudderless godless forms. If one day one of the life forms becomes self aware and starts asking questions, they will undoubtedly want to know who created them and if by then we can control the DNA into any life form using there own as a template, one of us can abduct a female of that species and plant the templated form in her womb with some specialized pre programmed DNA giving our little Virgin Birth some added capabilities to show them without a doubt they are the sons and daughters of us. Hell actually we can tell them we are responsible for ALL the stuff that came alive there.

I bet they will look at us as if we were,,

some, some kind, of a

GOD!

- Con






[edit on 22-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Originally posted by dave420

... their (sic) is this old Book that says something about you carrying the seed of your kind.


You are making this way too easy Con-job:

In a word,
parthenogenesis



... a type of asexual reproduction in which the offspring develops from unfertilized eggs. It is particularly common amongst arthropods and rotifers, can also be found in some species of fish, amphibians, birds, and reptiles, but not in mammals. Parthenogenetic development also occurs in some plants species, such as roses and orange trees.


We have to survive Armageddon before we ever get to destroy any other planets.

...
BECK: Does it concern you at all -- we only have 45 seconds. Does it concern you at all that the third temple is really ready? I mean, most of it is sitting in a warehouse. I mean, they got everything ready to go.

ROSENBERG: Architectural plans are done. The clothes for the priests are being, being sewn. All of the implements for the temple sacraments are being done.

BECK: And, the red heifer was -- is this true? That the red heifer, they have to make the ashes of blah, blah, blah, of a red heifer. Couldn`t find a red heifer, and now they`re just being born all over.

ROSENBERG: Well, they`re actually being genetically engineered right now, because you need an absolutely perfect one. One was born a few years ago called Melody. She turned out to have a few hairs that were flawed. And so they said that`s not the one. A perfect one has to be born and then, once that happens, it will be sacrificed and the temple will be ready to be built.

They are talking about actual plans underway to replace the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Won't that be fun? The reason America is not mentioned in the Bible, is because it is destroyed before the End Times and plays no role in it.
Yes, indeedy. Those Bible psychos are going to bring on the END if they have to do it all by themselves!



Remind us again, Con-job, just how big was Noah's ark?



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I like where this thread is headed!
Lift up your voices, my beauties.
The truth will set you free.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus

You are making this way too easy Con-job:


Well,, I am flattered but it isn't me taking the easy way out using an ad-hom in place of my name right out of the gate.

Impressive for someone at your level

I was making posts about parthenogenesis before you were even a member here back when it was "amazing" scientists but my point was, that it didn't surprise me when the story first broke and I posted these screenies


The rest of your post has me and just about everyone that knows me busting a gut at how vain you are.

I wanted to just tell you outright but after seeing you get all puffed up debunking my off the cuff essay whether my jocularity fails at its cognitive objective resulting in a chuckle or two, it must be made known before you go making an even bigger arse of yourself, that entire post was FACETIOUS.


I have no idea what the hell YOU are trying to prove but ha ha it sure provided the comical relief the humor I was attempting in my post obviously didn't do for you.


HA HA HA

Unbelievable

- Con





[edit on 23-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Why aren't there many more transitional forms in the fossil record, and why is the fossil record as incomplete as it is? Simple - it's very difficult to make a fossil. An animal has to die in exactly the right place, not be eaten or otherwise abused, until natural processes around it can envelop it in some sort of sediment, when it eventually fossilises.


Me: Dave, I can see from your post that you haven't studied Probability Theory?
Dave: That is correct, but what does that have to do with anything?
Me: Firstly, you say life has been around for over 1 billion years, right?
Dave: That is correct.
Me: If one organism evolves into another over millions of years wouldn't you expect there to be more transitional fossils?
Dave: Well. Um. Uh. No, um, no.
Me: Why not?
Dave: Um. Well, you see. Predators only eat transitional fossils and they eat the bones as well. The bones get digested. You see? No transitional fossils. If you were an educated evolutionist instead of a creationist, you would get it.
Me: You remember I mentioned probability theory earlier?
Dave: Of course I remember. I'm smart. Obviously much smarter than you.
Me: Unfortunately I have to ask you a question which you cannot answer since you did not study Probability Theory. What is the probability of NOT finding ANY transitional fossils when there should be MUCH more transitional fossils than "fully formed" fossils?
Dave: Well. Um. I didn't study probability theory so the chance of there being no transitional fossils is 100%. It must be because there are no transitional fossils. Well there are a few. So that should be close to 100%. I know nothing about probability theory so it must be crap anyway.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Lannock]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
Oh my, Conspirology, you must be feeling much better now after expelling all that!

What predictions? Well, here's a start:
chem.tufts.edu...

www.washingtonpost.com...


So you "one up me by showing me out dated debunked fraud?"

All of that stuff from the junk DNA to the Icon Fossils are fakes guy,, c'mon catch up or get out of the way,.



When you include geology, biochemistry and all the other overlapping fields that didn't even exist in Chuckies day, then evolution really does become "gynormous."


What the hell is that supposed to mean? Some Gynocological term for a prehistoric Vagina?



And just what is "dharma-haven.org"


Well its called a URL



Thanks for the laugh. Your "Story" of the "Myth of Scientific Method," is simply hilarious.


Jeeez guy,, you must be a masochist, so Ill explain this to you as if you were a 6 year old with no prior Darwininian indoctrination

Ready?

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MYTH
It, like most of what Darwinists believe is Science, is a MYTH


There is just no polite way to tell a retarded person that they are retarded.



Well if anyone has it coming to em

YOU DO

Ready?


Very valuable discussion of science; science, technology, & society (STS)
I consider this short book by Professor Bauer a must read for any person, scientist or non-scientist, who wants a concise but thorough discussion of the way science works, and of the myth, really ideal, of the scientific method, and most importantly, of what the author calls STS: science, technology, and society.

www.amazon.com...







Bauer, Henry H., Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, 1992 ...
en.wikipedia.org...



WWW: The Scientific Method -- Blystone and Blodgett 5 (1): 7 ...McComas provides an argument that "A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists" is a myth. The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all ...
www.lifescied.org...



the scientific method is a historical and philosophical myth and null hypothesis ...
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...



Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists. The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the ...
www.geocities.com...



The Commonly Accepted Myth of Scientific MethodFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Myth of Scientific Method. In Section 2, Chapters 5 to 8, we talked about an ..... The story of scientific. method is a myth
hist-phil.arts.unsw.edu.au...



Now,, what was that you were saying about calling me a retard?

By the way, you call me a retard again, and Ill show you how fast this retard will adjust your attitude

- Con







[edit on 23-6-2008 by Conspiriology]




top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join