|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Show me a scientific paper that attributes it to a miracle.
George sees an electron travel through the left slit. To what does he attribute the choice of slit? Percy writes:
On the contrary, Wikipedia mentions the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church calls it a miracle. Science does not. That's how the word "miracle" is actually used.
This makes whether something is miraculous dependent upon the observer's (rather than science's) knowledge and expertise, so it both isn't a useful definition and does disagree with Wikipedia. Percy writes:
Why would a flashlight be called a miracle by somebody who doesn't know the cause?
If a miracle occurred, how would it make it any less a miracle if the cause remained unknown? Percy writes:
You provided a fairy tale. I provided a real example, the miracle of the sun. It is considered a real miracle by the Roman Catholic Church but science does not acknowledge that any scientific laws were broken. Why can't you discuss the real example?
But the results are not inconclusive. I provided the example ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Does a scientific consensus ever call something "inexplicable"? It seems to me that there are likely to be a handful of possible explanations, none of which are accepted by a consensus.
But if a scientific consensus calls it "inexplicable" that pretty much does mean it's inexplicable to everybody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Does a scientific consensus ever call something "inexplicable"? It seems to me that there are likely to be a handful of possible explanations, none of which are accepted by a consensus. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Nope. I am not my own source. Reality is.
Ahhh now I get it. ringo and I were debating whether my hypothetical God was a better source than ringo. Phat writes:
Why not stick to reality? Look at the miracle of the sun. Science has several possible explanations.
Lets get back to Percys Bridge. Have we agreed that it is unexplainable...? Phat writes:
That's all I'm saying. A miracle is something that is labelled a miracle by somebody who can't explain it.
... it is up to the individual to label it a miracle or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If the rapture happened exactly as told in the fairy tale, only fundamentalist Christians would interpret it as "the Rapture". Some other religious minds might interpret it as a miracle. Scientific minds would come up with possible explanations.
Would we approach this event with a scientific mind or would we approach it with the awe that society might approach a hypothetical event such as The Rapture?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Responding to your recent messages...
Responding to your Message 405 to Phat:
ringo in Message 405 writes: The topic is the science of miracles. It's science that doesn't accept miracles. Of course science doesn't accept miracles. Science only accepts that for which there is sufficient evidence to form a consensus. This thread is attempting to ask the question, "What if there were scientific evidence of a miracle? How would science respond?" We understand you're not interested in addressing this question, indeed, are even hostile to the question being posed, so a better question for you is a rhetorical one: If you're not interested in the subject of this thread, why are you here? Responding to your Message 406 to me:
ringo in Message 406 writes: Percy writes:
Show me a scientific paper that attributes it to a miracle. George sees an electron travel through the left slit. To what does he attribute the choice of slit? Your two week absence has caused you to forget the context. The issue was attribution. You had incorrectly claimed that attribution was important. By way of arguing that attribution isn't important I asked you, "To what does he attribute the choice of slit?" The answer is obvious - the choice of slit has no attribution, no cause. If choice of slit requires no attribution, in other words, if some scientific phenomena require no attribution, why should a miracle?
On the contrary, Wikipedia mentions the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church calls it a miracle. Science does not. That's how the word "miracle" is actually used. That's only one way "miracle" is actually used. In this thread we're discussing miracles in a scientific context by considering the question, "What if a phenomenon occurred that presented us sufficient scientific evidence to form a consensus within science that it was a miracle?"
Percy writes:
Why would a flashlight be called a miracle by somebody who doesn't know the cause? If a miracle occurred, how would it make it any less a miracle if the cause remained unknown? You've forgotten the context again, which is science. We're not talking about the conclusions of ignorant or unscientific observers. We're talking about a phenomenon studied scientifically. How would it make it any less a miracle if there were no attribution?
Percy writes:
You provided a fairy tale. I provided a real example, the miracle of the sun. It is considered a real miracle by the Roman Catholic Church but science does not acknowledge that any scientific laws were broken. Why can't you discuss the real example? But the results are not inconclusive. I provided the example .... You're still forgetting that we're talking science. From the perspective of science the sun is an entirely natural phenomenon, the Catholic Church notwithstanding. The sun is not a scientific miracle. And I did not provide a fairy tale. I described a phenomenon that were it to happen would be regarded as a miracle by science. Responding to your Message 407 to me:
ringo in Message 407 writes: Does a scientific consensus ever call something "inexplicable"? It seems to me that there are likely to be a handful of possible explanations, none of which are accepted by a consensus. But science has never encountered a true miracle before. I described a phenomenon inexplicable according to natural or scientific law, i.e., a miracle. That the phenomenon is inexplicable according to science is part of the scenario. The actual problem is your refusal to consider a hypothetical miracle. Think of it like Isaac Asimov's thiotimoline. While a graduate student preparing to write his first scientific paper, as an exercise he first wrote a paper about a hypothetical substance that he made up that was so soluble in water that it dissolved 1.12 seconds before the water was added. He tried to consider all the scientific implications and include them in the paper. We're doing something similar here, considering a hypothetical phenomenon that has all the characteristics of a miracle. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
That question is self-contradictory. If there is scientific evidence for an event, there are necessarily possible scientific explanations and by definition it is not a miracle.
This thread is attempting to ask the question, "What if there were scientific evidence of a miracle?" Percy writes:
Attribution is by a person. There is no person choosing a slit so there is no possibility of attribution. The situation we're talking about is where Reverend Jim attributes the choice of slit to a supernatural cause while Scientist George says he doesn't know why or how the choice was made. But scientist George doen't call the choice a "miracle"; he just keeps looking for the why and how.
If choice of slit requires no attribution, in other words, if some scientific phenomena require no attribution, why should a miracle? Percy writes:
Why would we discuss that? We know that scientific consensus would never call something a miracle. You might as well discuss a scientific consensus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In this thread we're discussing miracles in a scientific context by considering the question, "What if a phenomenon occurred that presented us sufficient scientific evidence to form a consensus within science that it was a miracle?" Percy writes:
Yes we are. Those are the only people who call something a miracle.
We're not talking about the conclusions of ignorant or unscientific observers. Percy writes:
It's only the attribution to supernatural causes that makes it a "miracle". Look at the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church attributes it to a supernatural cause. Science does not.
How would it make it any less a miracle if there were no attribution? Percy writes:
The Catholic Church attributes a particular observation of the sun's activity to supernatural causes. Science does not. A miracle is the attribution of an event to supernatural causes.
From the perspective of science the sun is an entirely natural phenomenon, the Catholic Church notwithstanding. The sun is not a scientific miracle. Percy writes:
And science has never encountered a true fairy before. That's why the "phenomenon" of fairies is called a fairy tale.
But science has never encountered a true miracle before. Percy writes:
Nothing is "inexplicable" according to science. It may be unexplained temporarily.
That the phenomenon is inexplicable according to science is part of the scenario. Percy writes:
The actual problem here is that you refuse to consider what people actually call miracles. Look at the miracle of the sun. It is called a "miracle" by people who can't explain it but it is not called a miracle by science. Science tries to explain it. The actual problem is your refusal to consider a hypothetical miracle. Your what-if scenario is like closing down the Patent Office because everything possible has already been invented. Science isn't going to quit just because you make up a fairy tale about a flying bridge. Science is never going to conclude "insert miracle here".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy writes:
We're not talking about the conclusions of ignorant or unscientific observers.ringo writes: So you are suggesting that one cannot ever ascribe something as miraculous if they have any scientific education? Why is it so important to avoid the terminology? Why is it not simply a matter of choice?
Yes we are. Those are the only people who call something a miracle. ringo writes: I wouldn't be too sure about that statement. You are giving science far more faith than it warrants.
Nothing is "inexplicable" according to science. ringo writes: No wonder you never became a believer. You put way more faith in science than it has earned. The bigger philosophical questions will never be concluded by experiments. Science is never going to conclude "insert miracle here". Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If you take your car to a mechanic, do you expect him to say, "It can't be fixed," or "It's going to cost a lot to fix it"? So you are suggesting that one cannot ever ascribe something as miraculous if they have any scientific education? People who are science-minded will say, "I wonder how that happened," and try to figure it out.
Phat writes:
I'm not avoiding the terminology. I'm saying that science doesn't use it.
Why is it so important to avoid the terminology? Phat writes:
Nonsense. I didn't say that science "will" find all the answers or even that it "can" find all the answers. I'm said that it will never quit trying.
ringo writes:
You are giving science far more faith than it warrants. Nothing is "inexplicable" according to science. Phat writes:
Yes I did. I became a believer the same way you did, by swallowing hook-line-and-sinker what my society said was "the Truth". Then I became an unbeliever by recognizing that it wasn't true.
No wonder you never became a believer. Phat writes:
Nonsense. I could have ZERO faith in science ever finding the answer to anything. What I'm talking about is the fact that science will keep looking, no matter how good or bad their record is.
You put way more faith in science than it has earned. Phat writes:
The bigger philosophical questions are mostly garbage.
The bigger philosophical questions will never be concluded by experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: So you are suggesting that one cannot ever ascribe something as miraculous if they have any scientific education? All he's doing Phat is saying that miracles can't exist for definitional reasons. After that there's nothing left to say. It's a semantic argument of no intrinsic worth.
Why is it so important to avoid the terminology?
Because he's arguing terminolgy :-) Tedious isn't it? It doesn't allow for an actual miracle, he just defines it out. Pointless.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Responding to your last two messages:
Regarding your Message 412 to me:
ringo in Message 412 writes: Percy writes: This thread is attempting to ask the question, "What if there were scientific evidence of a miracle?" That question is self-contradictory. If there is scientific evidence for an event, there are necessarily possible scientific explanations and by definition it is not a miracle. It does not follow that just because scientific evidence exists that scientific explanations exist. It also does not follow that just because possible scientific explanations exist that by definition it isn't a miracle - it isn't guaranteed that one of the possible scientific explanations will pan out, or that any scientific explanation will ever pan out.
Percy writes: If choice of slit requires no attribution, in other words, if some scientific phenomena require no attribution, why should a miracle? Attribution is by a person. There is no person choosing a slit so there is no possibility of attribution. The situation we're talking about is where Reverend Jim attributes the choice of slit to a supernatural cause while Scientist George says he doesn't know why or how the choice was made. But scientist George doen't call the choice a "miracle"; he just keeps looking for the why and how. Your earlier two week vacation has still left you lost as far as the context of the discussion about attribution. No one ever claimed that the inability to attribute a cause means something is a miracle. Let's go back to where this started.You said in Message 364: ringo in Message 364 writes: It doesn't have to. It's clear from the context that a miracle is attributed to something. George sees a bright light, thinks it's a miracle and attributes it to the demon Wormwood. Jim sees the same bright light, understands how a flashlight works and attributes it to the laws of physics. The attribution is inherent. But the attribution is *not* inherent. There can be an absence of attribution. That's why I referenced the two-slit experiment, where there is no attribution of a cause for which slit an electron passes through. Events in science do not require a cause, and so if a miracle were to occur there is no requirement that there be a cause.
Percy writes: In this thread we're discussing miracles in a scientific context by considering the question, "What if a phenomenon occurred that presented us sufficient scientific evidence to form a consensus within science that it was a miracle?" Why would we discuss that? Obviously you don't want to discuss it, so I don't even know why you're here. You don't seem to want anyone else to discuss it, either.
We know that scientific consensus would never call something a miracle. Tentativity rules out such absolute declarations.
You might as well discuss a scientific consensus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You're drawing a false equivalence. This ancient question makes a point about the irrelevancy of arguing over things not known, while the question being considered here considers a hypothetical scenario where things *are* known. But if data about angels were to somehow come to light, we could meaningfully discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Percy writes:
Yes we are. Those are the only people who call something a miracle. We're not talking about the conclusions of ignorant or unscientific observers. No, you are wrong. In my bridge scenario there would be many scientific observers calling it a miracle.
Percy writes:
It's only the attribution to supernatural causes that makes it a "miracle". How would it make it any less a miracle if there were no attribution? You seem to have forgotten that we've been over this attribution thing before. There is no requirement that a miracle have an attribution, and even among the possible attributions the supernatural is only one. Plus science would likely invent new terminology. Rather than the term "miracle" they might say "nonconforming phenomenon" or some such, but it would still be a miracle.
Look at the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church attributes it to a supernatural cause. Science does not. Right. And we're looking at this from the point of view of science, not religion.
Percy writes:
The Catholic Church attributes a particular observation of the sun's activity to supernatural causes. Science does not. From the perspective of science the sun is an entirely natural phenomenon, the Catholic Church notwithstanding. The sun is not a scientific miracle. You're repeating yourself.
A miracle is the attribution of an event to supernatural causes. We've been over this. This is false.
Percy writes:
And science has never encountered a true fairy before. That's why the "phenomenon" of fairies is called a fairy tale. But science has never encountered a true miracle before. So can I guess that you'd also be unwilling to consider the hypothetical scenario of uncovering evidence for fairies?
Percy writes:
Nothing is "inexplicable" according to science. It may be unexplained temporarily. That the phenomenon is inexplicable according to science is part of the scenario. Sorry, but that's part of the scenario, that the phenomenon is inexplicable according to known science. If you don't feel like discussing that scenario that doesn't mean no one else can. You *could* just sit on the sidelines and sadly shake your head. I also think, as Tangle has noted, that you're too caught up in terminology. "Inexplicable" isn't a synonym for "inexplicable forever." Science is tentative and will change in light of new evidence or understanding.
Percy writes:
The actual problem here is that you refuse to consider what people actually call miracles. Look at the miracle of the sun. It is called a "miracle" by people who can't explain it but it is not called a miracle by science. The actual problem is your refusal to consider a hypothetical miracle. Boy, you really like this "miracle of the sun" business. Science is under no obligation to use the exact same definition of miracle as the Catholic Church. Defining miracle as inexplicable according to natural or scientific laws is a perfectly acceptable scientific definition.
Science tries to explain it. Of course science tries to explain it. Trying is not the same thing as succeeding.
Your what-if scenario is like closing down the Patent Office because everything possible has already been invented. Science isn't going to quit just because you make up a fairy tale about a flying bridge. Science is never going to conclude "insert miracle here". I created a thought experiment, which has a long and distinguished history. My bridge scenario is as legitimate as Einstein riding a light beam. Regarding your Message 414 to Phat:
ringo in Message 414 writes: Phat writes:
I'm not avoiding the terminology. I'm saying that science doesn't use it. Why is it so important to avoid the terminology? Not at present. But if the right phenomenon presented itself, one inexplicable by natural or scientific laws, then the terminology couldn't be avoided, could it. And as I said earlier, science would likely invent its own terminology, but the meaning would be the same.
Phat writes:
The bigger philosophical questions are mostly garbage. The bigger philosophical questions will never be concluded by experiments. Not the contemplative type, I guess. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Show us an example of something that is actually called a miracle where there is no attribution.
But the attribution is *not* inherent. There can be an absence of attribution. Percy writes:
That's the opposite of tentativity. Tentativity in science means that even if something seems to be a miracle, we can never rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will be found. That's why scientists don't call things miracles. ringo writes:
Tentativity rules out such absolute declarations. We know that scientific consensus would never call something a miracle. Look at the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church calls it a miracle. Scientists do not.
Percy writes:
So give us some examples of scientific papers where scientists call an event a miracle.
In my bridge scenario there would be many scientific observers calling it a miracle. Percy writes:
You haven't shown that. In the miracle of the sun, the only distinction between the Church's attitude and the scientists' attitude is that the Church attributes the event to supernatural causes.
ringo writes:
We've been over this. This is false. A miracle is the attribution of an event to supernatural causes. Percy writes:
We've had evidence of fairies. Science determined that it was faked.
So can I guess that you'd also be unwilling to consider the hypothetical scenario of uncovering evidence for fairies? Percy writes:
That's what makes the scenario nonsensical. Nothing is "inexplicable" to science, even if it is temporarily unexplained.
Sorry, but that's part of the scenario, that the phenomenon is inexplicable according to known science. Percy writes:
You're the only one who seems to want to.
If you don't feel like discussing that scenario that doesn't mean no one else can. Percy writes:
But science doesn't define "miracle" at all. It doesn't need to.
Defining miracle as inexplicable according to natural or scientific laws is a perfectly acceptable scientific definition. Percy writes:
Of course it could. It has been avoided for centuries despite the observation of phenomena that were temporarily unexplained.
But if the right phenomenon presented itself, one inexplicable by natural or scientific laws, then the terminology couldn't be avoided, could it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Not really. You are saying that *you* don't use it. I'm not avoiding the terminology. I'm saying that science doesn't use it.You don't have the authority to speak for all who use science on a daily basis---either as a career or as a tool. Many of them attend churches, some are believers, and others are not, but the fact is that science as a discipline only extends as far into their daily lives as they choose to let it do. Thus to say that *science* doesn't use this or that nor do this or that is simply your linguistic hangup and not an actual fact of reality. Science is used as far as an individual takes it. There is no rule regarding where science stops and faith and belief begin. ringo writes: You are projecting. What you again seem to be saying is that *you* will never stop trying. I didn't say that science "will" find all the answers or even that it "can" find all the answers. I'm said that it will never quit trying. This is similar to an argument that you and I once had regarding the term evidence.
ringo writes: Thus the evidence in your mind was evident to you...but not by decree to everyone! I became a believer the same way you did, by swallowing hook-line-and-sinker what my society said was "the Truth". Then I became an unbeliever by recognizing that it wasn't true.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. I'm saying that science doesn't use it.
You are saying that *you* don't use it. Phat writes:
It has nothing to do with authority. If you know of examples where science refers to miracles, please post them.
You don't have the authority to speak for all who use science on a daily basis---either as a career or as a tool. Phat writes:
When they're doing science, they don't refer to miracles.
Many of them attend churches, some are believers, and others are not, but the fact is that science as a discipline only extends as far into their daily lives as they choose to let it do. Phat writes:
Nonsense. Science is collective.
Science is used as far as an individual takes it. Phat writes:
Of course there is. Science stops at the evidence.
There is no rule regarding where science stops and faith and belief begin. Phat writes:
Nonsense. I'm not a scientist at all. I never even started trying.
ringo writes:
You are projecting. What you again seem to be saying is that *you* will never stop trying. I didn't say that science "will" find all the answers or even that it "can" find all the answers. I'm said that it will never quit trying. Phat writes:
Evidence is evident to everybody. That's what evident means.
Thus the evidence in your mind was evident to you...but not by decree to everyone!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Seen in context with our discussion regarding the science of miracles...
Can Science Prove The Existence Of God? A good article! Some notable quotes for fodder:
Forbes writes: I am very open about not being a man of faith myself, but of having tremendous respect for those who are believers. The wonderful thing about science is that it is for everybody who’s willing to look to the Universe itself to find out more information about it. Why would your belief in God require that science give a specific answer to this question that we don’t yet know the answer to? Will your faith be shaken if we find that, hey, guess what, chemistry works to form life on other worlds the same way it worked in the past on this one? Will you feel like you’ve achieved some sort of spiritual victory if we scour the galaxy and find that human beings are the most intelligent species on all the worlds of the Milky Way?(...)Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn. (...)The joys of knowing of figuring out the answers to questions for ourselves is one that none of us should be cheated out of. May your faith, if you have one, only serve to enhance and enrich you, not take the wonder of science away! The author, a scientist, voices his perspective on faith and science.
If you know of examples where science refers to miracles, please post them. The article that I quoted never referred to intelligent life as a miracle, but indicated that science has stopped at the evidence thus far and that nothing evidently has been proven regarding human uniqueness vs math probability of replication throughout the universe. For the time being, our existence is statistically rare, if not miraculous. (But what of the atomic clock?) Edited by Phat, : added clock commentChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024