Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does immunity disprove the fall?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 66 (353647)
10-02-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals
10-02-2006 1:33 PM


AIG writes:
Why then do we have immune systems that protect us from disease?
We don't have immune systems that protect us from disease. We have immune systems that help us fight against disease.
God said we were doomed to disease and death, not disease followed by death.
Adam and Eve most probably didn't have immune systems, at least not initially, since they would have had no use for them.
Adam and Eve didn't need their sex organs either because they didn't have a need for them. The point is I don't think this is a valid criticism of the existence of the immune system. God didn't ONLY give A and E what they ONLY needed. If it was the case, then all they needed was a little cage in the cosmos to live. Instead, they had a whole garden for entertainment.
I am also curious about peoples thoughts concerning modern medicines ability to ameliorate disease and extend the human life span, more than doubling it in the last 200 years. Does this thwart god's purpose in inflicting us with disease? Or does the fact that most of that medical intervention, such as vaccinations, involves boosting the immune system, which god has already given us, mean that it is okay and not 'an abomination in the sight of the lord'?
Medicine has been used for as long as there's been people and animal. However, there are certain christian sects that are against certain modern forms of medicine, like surgical procedures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-02-2006 1:33 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 10-02-2006 3:14 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 66 (353679)
10-02-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
10-02-2006 3:14 PM


Ringo writes:
Just out of curiosity, where did God link our "doom" to disease?
I don't know if you purposely miread what I said, but I'll clear it up. I did not use the word "doom" in the context of ultimate demise. I used it in a metaphorical context. For example, when you get married you are doomed to a life of monogomy. When you get a pet dog, you are doomed mornings of licked face.
Also, god never directly said "disease" in genesis. He, however, said that A and E would know suffering through the toiling and working of the land in harsh environment for food. I think in this case disease is implied.
It just so happens that diseases like to creep around inside of us.
What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 10-02-2006 3:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 10-02-2006 6:08 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 66 (353685)
10-02-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
10-02-2006 3:19 PM


Re: no it does not disprove the Fall,
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
While this is obviously a reference to the hardship we'd have to endure to work the land for food, I think it is also a reference to the tainted environment that A and E must live in. By tainted, I mean that the world is a diseased place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-02-2006 3:19 PM jar has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 66 (353794)
10-03-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
10-02-2006 6:08 PM


Ringo writes:
All living creatures were created before the supposed "fall", including bacteria.
Yes, according to genesis. However, the story also says that man would have dominion over all creatures.
quote:
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
clearly, everything was intended to be a positive amusement for A. What we now know as imperfect and perfect parasites were also created then but probably had diffferent purposes or functions. I suspect that only after the fall did the parasites turn on mankind.
It seems contradictory to suggest that disease was a result of the "fall".
Disease, not the parasites and pathogens, was a result of the fall.
That the diseases were already there, in their hosts, before any "doom" was pronounced.
While I am viewing disease and the pathogen that causes it as two distinct categories, you see them as one. The pathogens were already there but they did not cause the diseases before the fall.
As far as we know, Adam and Eve didn't live very long before the supposed "fall".
I don't think there is any place in genesis that give us a frame of reference in regard to A and E's time in Eden.
Whether or not they were immune to their tiny inhabitants, they hadn't had much time to get sick and die, so "super-immunity" is just wild specualtion.
I wasn't arguing for the super immunity idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 10-02-2006 6:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 1:41 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 34 of 66 (353880)
10-03-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by AnswersInGenitals
10-03-2006 5:42 AM


AIG writes:
But he is also omnipotent so that he is able to make himself forget something for a short (short by god's standard) period of time and thus be surprised by man's perfidy.
This is perhaps the best excuse I have ever heard for this particular dilemma. I find it ironic that it's coming from you.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-03-2006 5:42 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 66 (353936)
10-03-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
10-03-2006 1:41 PM


Ringo writes:
That "dominion" would include immunity to any disease-causing creatures.
I'm getting frustrated by the apparent misreading of what I said. Let me make it clear. There was no disease in the garden. There were parasites and pathogens, but they didn't cause disease.
On what do you base that probability calculation?
I believe I said...
quote:
What we now know as imperfect and perfect parasites were also created then but probably had diffferent purposes or functions.
I used the word "probably" in the context of common sense perception. Again, you are certainly persistent at misreading what I said and it is getting frustrating.
On what do you base that suspicion?
Well, obviously god created every living creature before the fall and obviously there was no disease back then. Obviously, after the fall those creatures would have still been present but there was disease.
That's what I said. As far as we know, they might only have been there hours or days before they were expelled - no time for their internal parasites, etc. to kill them. Therefore, no reason to assume a magical "change" in parasites or bacteria at the "fall".
One could say that as far as we know they could have been in the garden for a lot longer than that. You can't assume something and then call it fact.
And yes, there is reason to assume that the parasites changed after the fall. Again, obviously they were present before the fall and they didn't cause any disease. Obviously, they were still present after the fall but they started to cause disease.
As far as we know, if they had not been expelled from the garden, they would still have been subjected to the same diseases and parasites. For all we know, they might have gained immunity because of the "fall".
Your "as far as we know"s are nothing but conjecture, if that. But let me turn it around. As far as we know, A and E could have been in Eden for 5 million years. Again, there is no hint in genesis to suggest either way.
And why would they gain immunity because of the fall? Remember that the creationist conception on this is that things can only get worse after the fall, not get better, because of deterioration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 1:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 5:38 PM Taz has replied
 Message 38 by Sonne, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 PM Taz has replied
 Message 48 by RickJB, posted 10-04-2006 3:52 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 66 (354013)
10-03-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ringo
10-03-2006 5:38 PM


Ringo writes:
Tell us why you think they didn't cause diseases before the "fall".
(1) God created everything.
(2) There was no mention of disease before the fall.
(3) There was mention of disease after the fall.
(1) and (2) ==> parasites were there but they didn't cause disease
(1) and (3) ==> parasites were there and they did cause disease
It isn't "obvious" at all. Tell us why you think it's obvious.
(1) God created everything.
(2) There was no mention of disease before the fall.
(3) There was mention of disease after the fall.
(1) and (2) ==> parasites were there but they didn't cause disease
(1) and (3) ==> parasites were there and they did cause disease
I said that you can't assume that Adam and Eve didn't have diseases before the "fall".
Yes, I can.
quote:
Gen 1 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
quote:
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
quote:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground”everything that has the breath of life in it”I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
In other words, orinally man was created to "rule" over all living creatures. Rule implies dominate. If god intended for man to rule/dominate over all living creatures, why would it allowed certain living creatures to cause suffering onto the man?
Then tell us what the reason is. Don't just say "it's obvious".
(1) God created everything.
(2) There was no mention of disease before the fall.
(3) There was mention of disease after the fall.
(1) and (2) ==> parasites were there but they didn't cause disease
(1) and (3) ==> parasites were there and they did cause disease
And that was after Cain and Abel were born and grew up. They could not have been in the garden much more than 100 years, max.
There you go, 100 years. I find it hard to believe that if there was disease that the disease didn't manifest itself in a 100 years time.
So the time spent in the garden was less than 15% of his lifetime - the equivalent of less than ten years in today's lifespans. It is entirely possible that Adam and Eve had long-term diseaes that they contracted before the "fall".
Like I said, god created man to rule over all others, originally at least. Why would certain creatures, then, be allowed to cause suffering onto man?
It may have escaped your notice, but I'm not arguing from the creationist viewpoint. If you'll read some of my posts in other threads, you'll learn that I don't believe for a split second that a "fall" ever occured, or that there has been any "deterioration".
Neither of us believe for a split second that the fall ever occurred. But if we are going to assume certain things, like the event of the fall, we can't start inserting whatever we wanted.
Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 5:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 8:31 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 43 of 66 (354017)
10-03-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Sonne
10-03-2006 5:46 PM


kakariki writes:
If this is so then these 'parasites and pathogens' ate what and (in particular viruses) reproduced how?
parasites can sometimes exist without causing harm to their hosts. These are perfect parasites. Pathogens don't "eat" in the conventional sense. They reproduce by infesting our cells. Again, not all of them cause harm to their hosts.
Remember that there is a distinct difference between these parasites and the disease that they can cause. You can't automatically equate parasite with disease.
If not, then in the case of bacteria A&E may have had some strong competition for space in the garden.
The overwhelming majority of bacteria are completely harmless to us.
That A&E were given immunity because of the fall, to protect them?
Not at all. This is a shady area because we don't know either way whether they were given their immune systems before or after the fall. What we do know for certain is that they did have their immune systems AFTER the fall. We can't say whether they had immune systems or not BEFORE the fall because there is nothing we can base on.
Or that they evolved immunity?
Nope.
If the fall was a punishment then this seems a bit strange to endow them with such an amazing defence mechanism.
You're kidding, right?
Imagine that you are an evil king who enjoys watching people suffer. You've caught 200 enemy combatants and you want to see them suffer as much as possible. Are you going to just kill them with a single sword blow or are you going to slowly torture them to death?
Sometimes, the ultimate punishment isn't immediate death. I can think off the top of my head a hundred things worse than immediate death, and one of them is suffering for years with a disease because the immune system is fighting the disease just enough to keep you alive but it can't get rid of the disease overall.
Regardless, it's certainly doing a great job at keeping up with the supposed 'deterioration'.
Actually, no. Our immune system ain't any better or stronger than our ancestors'. The only difference is we live in a much cleaner environment than before and we are made more aware of the sanitation techniques that keep us from regularly contracting debilitating diseases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Sonne, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 PM Sonne has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Sonne, posted 10-04-2006 6:42 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 66 (354049)
10-03-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
10-03-2006 8:31 PM


Ringo writes:
You'll have to do a lot better than say "it wasn't mentioned" to prove it didn't exist.
Uh... from a logical point of view it is you who has to prove that it existed. Don't you remember the you-can't-prove-a-negative part of logic?
A lot of things weren't mentioned before the "fall". Africa wasn't mentioned. Do you assume that it just popped up out of the ocean after the "fall"?
Genesis says...
quote:
Genesis 1 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Here, at least the continents are implied. There is absolutely no implication whatsoever of disease... unless of course we are going to start assuming that invisible pink unicorns exist until someone can prove their nonexistence...
Do you see anywhere in the "fall" story where it says man was to lose any of his dominion over the animals?
Yes.
quote:
Genesis 3 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
In other words, they didn't have to work for food before. Now, they do. Sounds like somebody just lost at least partial control of the world around him.
quote:
Exactly. We can't start assuming that there were no diseases before the "fall".
I am simply starting from a negative and will change my view when YOU can present some evidence that indicate disease before the fall, unless of course we can start assuming the existence of invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, psychics, and every crackpot supernatural creatures out there until I can effectively somehow prove their nonexistence.
Ringo, I'm fully aware of how logic works and what the logical fallacies are, so don't try to pull my leg again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 8:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:30 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 47 of 66 (354074)
10-04-2006 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ringo
10-04-2006 12:30 AM


Ringo writes:
We have disease-causing pathogens today. They inhabit other living organisms, feed off them, etc. That is the default condition.
For one thing, you can't assume sameness for before and after the fall. You don't see angels flying around or god appearing and disappearing today! Before the fall, the world was a completely different place/reality than after the fall.
If you claim that benign organisms magically changed into disease-causing pathogens, then you have to produce positive evidence of that change.
The world was a different place before the fall. You can't assume sameness for before and after the fall. Because of this, we can only portray the world before the fall BASED ON THE ACCOUNTS IN GENESIS. No mention of disease there.
My position is the negative-that-can't-be-proven position: that things are the same now as they were before the supposed "fall".
That's just it, things aren't the same now as they were before the fall.
Just the opposite: I'm going to assume that pink unicorns don't exist until somebody can prove their existence. Similarly, I'm going to assume no fundamental change in the nature of pathogens until somebody can prove that there was a change.
No mention of disease before the fall. Mention of disease after the fall. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
When they "fell", God told Adam and Eve that they would have to grow their own food. There is no implication of loss of dominion over the animals - including pathogens.
The very fact that they had to work for food after the fall and they didn't before the fall tells us there has been a fundamental change in how the relationships between man and beasts have changed.
No you are not. You are starting from the positive position of a change in pathogen behaviour/"lifestyles". I am saying that there was no change unless you can demonstrate that there was.
Again, no mention of disease before the fall. Mention of disease after the fall.
But you are the one who is suggesting that crackpot supernatural creatures - non-pathenogenic pathenogens - existed before the "fall".
God created everything. No mention of disease before the fall. Yes mention of disease after the fall. These "creatures" must have existed before and after the fall. No mention of disease in genesis 1 and 2 tells me that these creatures didn't cause harm. Yes mention of disease after the fall tells me that these creatures now cause harm.
That's the equivalent of pink unicorns turning into zebras. We know that zebras exist now, but you are demanding that I produce evidence that they were not pink unicorns before the "fall".
No such thing. I am simply demanding that you produce some kind of evidence that these little creatures actually caused disease BEFORE the fall.
All I'm saying is that zebras were zebras before the "fall".
No mention of zebras before or after the fall. We can say either way.
Anyway, I've already said all I wanted to say and you've already said all you wanted to say. We seem to be repeating ourselves. Let's just agree to disagree for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:30 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:48 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 66 (354161)
10-04-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RickJB
10-04-2006 3:52 AM


RickJB writes:
None of this is "obvious" to me.
Care to expand on how these things are "obvious"?
First of all, I do know
I explained this further in the next post I made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RickJB, posted 10-04-2006 3:52 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 66 (354166)
10-04-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
10-04-2006 12:48 PM


Ringo writes:
"Sameness" is the default. Show us evidence of a change.
No, it is not in this particular case. Before and after the fall are two different realities. For a change, A and E now have to toil. Childbearing or E is very painful. In later generations, it could be fatal. Serpents are now cursed. Women are now subjugated beings. The ground is supposedly cursed. People are no longer running around naked.
These are just the things that the bible says directly. I have never been a big fan of literal literal literal literal reading. As I explained before, there are implications throughout that indicate drastic changes from before to after the fall.
Working for food has nothing to do with the relationship between man and beasts.
Beasts are food. Before the fall the beasts didn't attack A and E and A and E didn't attack them for food. But after the fall, A and E became omnivores (or at least their children did). Hence the change in relationship between man and beast.
Lack of "mention" is irrelevant.
I don't agree. Disease is obviously a very significant part of people's lives. From how genesis was written, god was testing A and E. What if A and E passed the test? Would god have made a paradise rampant with disease?
In this particular case, lack of mention is important.
And that's exactly the same logic as demanding that I produce evidence that zebras were zebras BEFORE the fall. Without evidence to the contrary, default wins.
Zebras weren't mentioned at all before or after the fall. During the process of quoting, you are skipping through some rather important points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 1:50 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 53 of 66 (354193)
10-04-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
10-04-2006 1:50 PM


Ringo writes:
There is nothing in your examples (or in Genesis) about a fundamental change in biology.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
In other words, the lions didn't maw A and the grizzlies didn't chase him. Sounds like a pretty drastic change of biology to me.
There hadn't been any childbirth before the "fall", so no possibility of change there.
Again, here is the quote directly from the book of Genesis.
quote:
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
"Will" refers to future action. In other words, even if E gave birth before the fall it wouldn't have been painful. Sounds like a pretty drastic change in biology to me.
Remember how Adam named smallpox and bubonic plague?
Adam didn't name smallpox and bubonic plague. There is no such creature as smallpox and bubonic plague. These are diseases caused by creatures that Adam did name. Again, directly from the bible.
quote:
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
It didn't say "and so the man also names all the diseases..."
You are confusing diseases and the agents that cause them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 1:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 2:42 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 55 of 66 (354210)
10-04-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
10-04-2006 2:42 PM


Ringo writes:
God was there to prevent any unruly behaviour. No "mention" of a change in biology at all.
You know what, I don't even know why I've persisted this long on something I obviously don't believe in or even bother to think about.
Once again, there can not be a "change" from no childbirth at all to painful childbirth. There can not be an increase in pain without something to compare it to. Thus, your "even if" is meaningless.
God did say he will make it painful, implying that it would not have been painful before. But that's as far as I can go.
But we have nothing but your assertion that the pathogens magically "changed" as a result of the "fall".
Ok, you win. I personally think I have provided adequate quotes from Genesis, but I guess not.
You have been trying to argue that Adam and Eve didn't need an immune system before the "fall". The more important question is whether or not they had one.
Not at all. I've been saying all along that there's no way to know if they had immune system before the fall or not. Eden was a place void of suffering. There's no mention of Adam catching a cold or getting an allergic reaction from mosquito bite. In other words, he lived in a matrix like environment surrounded by bliss.
According to my line of reasoning, unless there is some evidence that they acquired an immune system as a result of the "fall", we can assume that they already had one.
My reasoning doesn't entail existence of immune system before the fall. I only know that they did have immune system after the fall.
If there was no disease before the "fall", then our immune system is more of a reward than a punishment.
Nope, let's follow this through. If we don't have an immune system at all, a simple common cold would kill any of us before we can reproduce. There might be some suffering, but it's not long before our ultimate demise.
With an immune system, we are allowed ample time to reproduce and at the same time catch some diseases that make our lives just a little harder. Because of immune system, our suffering is greatly prolonged. I say that's a punishment rather than reward.
It's sort of like the difference between killing your mortal enemy instantly and tie him up and start peeling his skin off. I know this is a grim view of god, but if you think about it it makes a lot more sense. God's suppose to know who's damned and who's not before the person even existed, yet it would allow a damned person to exist at all so to be thrown into the lake of fire. Sounds like a pretty bad parent to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 2:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 3:18 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 58 by ReverendDG, posted 10-04-2006 8:14 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 61 of 66 (354314)
10-05-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by AnswersInGenitals
10-05-2006 12:09 AM


Re: The other side of the coin.
AIG writes:
The fact that both these children fully realized that Micky Mouse is a mythical character did not in the least deter them from the vehemence of their positions.
Don't even get me started on star trek. I used to spend hours upon hours everyday debating with my trekkie friend on star trek issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-05-2006 12:09 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024