Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Equating science with faith
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 326 (460306)
03-13-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
03-13-2008 7:56 PM


Definitions of Gods
Rob quoting Merriam-Webster writes:
God 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
I note that Merriam Webster, which you seem to regard as having some authority, fails to give "logic" as a synonym for God in any of its definitions. Perhaps you ought to write to them, and correct them on this. While you're at it, you could also ask them to include "the law of contradiction" as one of their definitions of science.
If you choose to argue that reality = God, and logic = God, then you could also advise them to include reality as a definition of logic, and logic in their definitions of reality, which I'm sure they've failed to do.
I don't know if you've noticed, but there's another Christian on this thread defining his God sometimes as "energy" and sometimes as "existence". If he starts writing to dictionaries about this as well, they're going to have a real headache.
You could have saved yourself this problem if you had read the arguments in the thesis. I provided the definition and the source.
A quick aside on your thesis about something that is sort of indirectly related to this thread's topic. If you're going to talk about Hume, and you want to sound authoritative, it would help if you put him in the correct century.
Apart from that technical point, you also need to think about what a volume is, and what a statement is, and what an extract is. That's a clue as to the reason why you might want to remove the Hume section from your blog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 7:56 PM Rob has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 62 of 326 (460312)
03-14-2008 12:54 AM


Topic drift alert
I suggest all review the topic title and message 1 of this topic, and consider what the topic theme is. Then ask yourself "Does what I'm about to post connect up to that theme"?
If your answer is "No", then don't post the material. If your answer is "Maybe", then perhaps you need to make an extra effort to explicitly make clear the connection.
Or something like that.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rob, posted 03-14-2008 8:05 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 63 of 326 (460329)
03-14-2008 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Adminnemooseus
03-14-2008 12:54 AM


Re: Topic drift alert
Moose, I can honestly say that I think bluegenes is on topic. We're discussing god and science here. Are they the same?
Bluegenes is making the case that they are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-14-2008 12:54 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-14-2008 9:52 PM Rob has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 326 (460333)
03-14-2008 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by tesla
03-13-2008 10:32 PM


Re: defining faith
tesla writes:
No different. All Christians agree christ died for their sins.
Uh, yes, Tesla, that's the point. Christians see things one way, Jews another, Moslems another, Hindus another, Buddhists another, etc. That's because religion doesn't look at objective reality. It's called faith. If you had evidence for your beliefs they wouldn't call it faith, they'd call it science.
Science is just as divided. Some scientists are religious, some are not.
And some scientists play golf and some play scrabble. The religious beliefs or lack thereof of scientists has as much to do with science as whether they prefer meatloaf or porridge. Your objection makes as much sense as if I were to say, "Christians are completely divided because they don't agree about what's the best car to drive." Your objection lacks relevance.
Its still evidence. Its just in the interpretations. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
Data that changes according to the way you look at it is not objective data. If I see a red car and you see a red car and everybody else sees a red car, then we can be pretty sure that it's a red car, and we call that objective evidence. When you see one God and I see another God and somebody else sees Allah and someone else sees Buddha, that's subjective.
Right now we are all on a turning point, because the age is ending.
The age is ending? Really? Is that an objective reality for which you have objective evidence? Can you point to this evidence for the ending of the age and everyone will agree about it? Of course not. This is an excellent example of faith.
But as we stand at the edge of its, lets debate with honesty.
So people who don't share your religious beliefs aren't being honest?
Is string theory a theory only acceptable by faith?
String theory is not currently an accepted theory within science because it hasn't yet passed any tests. I know it's called string theory, but until it passes sufficient tests it won't become accepted by a consensus of scientists, and until then it is actually just a hypothesis, though one viewed as having much potential.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you think you have for your Christian God, the definition of objective reality is something with sufficient quality evidence that is apparent to everyone and that everyone can agree about. The mere fact that there are so many religious Gods means there's no consensus, no objective reality to any of them, and they are just a matter of faith, not evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 10:32 PM tesla has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 326 (460336)
03-14-2008 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by tesla
03-13-2008 10:32 PM


Re: defining faith
Hi, Tesla!
tesla writes:
No different. All Christians agree christ died for their sins. Its the details that are not worked out.
But, we don't all believe that God=reality, or that the universe and all reality is the body of Christ, as you've been saying. I'm Christian, and I believe that Christ's body looks like a human body, not a universe.
tesla writes:
Science is just as divided. Some scientists are religious, some are not. Its still evidence. Its just in the interpretations. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
No, science isn't divided: scientists are. There are many interpretations of the data, but interpretations are not science. Intepretations are the first step to finding evidence. When you've found the evidence to support your interpretation, then you have a theory, and you have science. Until then, you've just got an idea, an opinion, an interpretation, a hypothesis, whatever. And, without the evidence, you do not hold out on faith and continue studying in your unsupported direction: you let the evidence guide your next set of hypotheses.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 10:32 PM tesla has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 66 of 326 (460338)
03-14-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rob
03-13-2008 9:24 PM


Re: I do not thinkida means what you thinkida means
Rob writes:
Stile writes:
I do not have faith in anything. Why do you think this is impossible?
Only because we are not omniscient.
But I know I'm not omniscient. And yet I still do not have faith in anything. What is it that you think I must have faith in?
I, like you, believe that what we experience is real, when we are rational about it, and back it up with the available evidence.
I agree. And I would like to point out that I do not assume that what I experience is real based on faith. I assume that what I experience is real based on empirical experience. I do not have faith regarding my assumption that what I experience is real.
Do you know of anything that I must be assuming and that assumption must be based on faith? I can't think of one, and I'm pretty sure I don't have one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 9:24 PM Rob has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 67 of 326 (460341)
03-14-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by tesla
03-13-2008 10:08 PM


Re: Why kill faith?
science takes faith in their observations of the world, and faith in their abilities to analyze the data.
Why do you keep saying this? It isn't true. And I've shown you that it isn't true. Science assumes it's ability to analyze observations of the world based on empirical experience, not faith.
now whats reality? the truth of what exists. but its perceived with bias. so how you view it, thats what you say it is. but what exist has a reality that is the true reality, regardless what anyone says it is. so what is the truth?
if you want any more form me concerning the law of existence, click my name look for the very first post i ever made on the boards: the law of existence.
Thank-you. But I don't care what reality is for this topic, and I don't want anything concerning the law of existence from you either. What I want from you is the same as the topic of this thread, what we're supposed to be talking about. I want to know why you think Faith is equal to Science.
as far as faith: you'll have faith in what you choose to.
This is the first thing you've said that makes sense. And I agree. I simply don't choose to have faith in anything. And the same goes for science. (Technically, science did it first, and I'm just a copy-cat).
So, regarding Faith and Science, you still haven't shown why they're the same, and we're still at:
quote:
I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing? (regarding God and air)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 10:08 PM tesla has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 68 of 326 (460391)
03-14-2008 4:39 PM


Science comes from common sense, not faith!
Science doesn't require faith, unless we use the word to describe the trust that everyone has to have in their senses and observed reality.
Picture this:
A small tribe of stone age people are living in a large cave, into which they have recently moved. They have a small problem, which is that they’ve noticed that some of their spears are becoming warped. The faith of the tribe is in animism and ancestor worship, and the shaman has declared that the source of the problem is that the men are not properly performing the ritual in which the spirits of the ancestors are asked to strengthen and guide the spears.
One of the men, called Smartass, examines his warped spear, and notices that it is damp. As one of the areas in which the spears are stored is in a place where water trickles in through the roof of the cave, he’s not surprised, and wonders whether the water and the warping might have a connexion, as his remaining straight spears are dry.
He decides to test the idea by leaving two of his spears in the damp area of the cave, and two others in a particularly dry area. Sure enough, after a couple of days, the spears in the damp area are showing signs of warping, and the dry ones are straight and true. Excited, he tells the rest of the tribe the results of his experiment, and advises them to store their spears in the driest possible areas of the cave.
The shaman is not pleased, and challenges the result, firm in his faith that the ancestral spirits must be involved, and fearing loss of status in the tribe. Smartass once again places two spears in the damp area and two in the driest area, and after a couple of days, the results of his experiment are repeated, and the tribe are convinced that his hypothesis is now a strong theory.
Common sense on the part of Smartass, but also stone age science. No faith required.
The story can have two alternative endings:
(1) The shaman murders Smartass, because his way of explaining things is a threat to the status quo.
(2) Smartass gains an admiring following, becomes chief of the tribe, and they prosper under his pragmatic, realistic, materialistic guidance. None of this stops them from believing in the spirits of their ancestors.
This kind of thing is the root of the scientific way of looking at our environment. There is no grand philosophy and no faith required. Methodological naturalism is really just a fancy name for a kind of practical common sense approach to understanding the world.
We have a lot of space age shamans on this site who seem to think otherwise.
One of our shamans, Rob, likes to quote this from physicist Paul Davies:
quote:
“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
This shows us that there’s no reason to suppose that good physicists are good philosophers or historians! Common sense, as shown by Smartass, doesn’t require monotheism, polytheism, atheism or anything else. No-one needs to have faith that there is order in nature to do science. If the stone age tribe come to see it as a general rule that damp damages their spears, that is drawn from observation, experience, and in the case of the early scientist, Smartass, deliberate testing.
So that's why animist ancestor worshippers, polytheists (someone should tell Davies about the Greeks :rolleyes monotheists, atheists and others can all do science.
It is only those shamans who believe in superstitions that clash with the reality revealed by scientific method who have problems with it.
These days, long past the stone age, we call them "creationists", the champions of blind, irrational faith.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines between paragraphs in quote box.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 03-15-2008 8:23 AM bluegenes has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 69 of 326 (460417)
03-14-2008 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rob
03-14-2008 8:05 AM


Re: Topic drift alert
rob writes:
Moose, I can honestly say that I think bluegenes is on topic. We're discussing god and science here. Are they the same?
Bluegenes is making the case that they are not.
This is a topic comparing religious faith to scientific "faith". We are exploring how "faith" or "belief" in a scientific conclusion is not the same thing as as religious faith or belief. As I see it, this is not a topic about the nature of God.
The pre-message 62 messages were getting pretty murky in regards to topic theme connection. If you think a legitimate connection is indeed there, then you should, as I said in message 62:
Adminnemooseus, in message 62, writes:
...you need to make an extra effort to explicitly make clear the connection.
I guess you previous reply was at least sort of OK (count the weasel words there ), but please no further replies to moderation messages.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rob, posted 03-14-2008 8:05 AM Rob has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 70 of 326 (460423)
03-14-2008 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
03-13-2008 10:04 PM


Re: defining faith
If I am a bot that is being controled by a human you would be mistaken.
A logical inference based on objective evidence can still be wrong, ICANT. I never claimed the scientific method results in perfect knowledge. The potential to be wrong also does not imply faith - the belief is still based on objective evidence and past experience.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
The expansion of the Universe is a fact.
ICANT writes:
quote:
I would love to see the information that makes this a fact as I seem to keep finding too many people that disagree with you.
The expansion of the Universe is an observation based primarily (but not wholly) on the redshift observed in distant galaxies. As an observation, it is as factual as anything else in science. True, it is still tentative (again, it's possible we are all in the Matrix), but it is so strongly supported by evidence and models based on it so accurately reflect our Universe that it's as much a fact as gravity.
But that's not the topic of this thread, ICANT.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
the Universe simply exists
Since you are refering to T=10-43
Would you please supply some of those mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence to support this point?
I'd say it's pretty obvious that the universe exists, ICANT. I mean, look around you. Everything you see would be objective evidence that the Unvierse exists.
Or are you referring to Big Bang cosmology again? That thing you never did understand despite two entire threads of attempts to explain it to you? We gave you a very large amount of objective, testable, reproducible evidence of the Big Bang model in those other threads. I've grown rather tired of bashing my face against the brick wall of your ignorance, and I'm certainly not going to repeat myself again in a thread about a different topic entirely.
Now, do you have anything to say regarding the actual topic of the thread? Or did you just want to rehash the same misconceptions and ignorance in a third round?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2008 10:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2008 12:08 AM Rahvin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 71 of 326 (460429)
03-15-2008 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rahvin
03-14-2008 10:34 PM


Re: defining faith
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
But that's not the topic of this thread, ICANT.
But it is the topic.
Message 392 of 410 03-10-2008 11:43 AM When you posted this message you were 100% positive that expansion was a fact. The only way you could have been that sure was by your FAITH. You just proved that with msg 70.
Now you say:
True, it is still tentative
Along with your version of expansion with the statement it is just as much a fact as gravity.
Since you already stated expansion was a fact then said it was tentative. You should not be too surprised that I don't have enough faith in you to accept your word for it.
I know you have faith in what you believe, but I got to have something a little bit stronger than your word.
I await your evidence on this point.
Rahvin writes:
I'd say it's pretty obvious that the universe exists, ICANT. I mean, look around you. Everything you see would be objective evidence that the Universe exists.
Very observant.
Then we move to your statement: "the universe simply exists".
But you were referring to T=10-43 as you had several times when we had discussed the Big Bang.
Now you either accept the fact that the universe simply exists at T=10-43 by "FAITH" or you have reproducible, objective, testable evidence to support this assertion.
I am not asking you to bash your head against a brick wall.
I am asking what evidence you use to determine the universe simply exists at T=10-43 .
I am not asking for the gospel of the universe, just the facts.
That is all I have ever asked.
I await your evidence on this point.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 03-14-2008 10:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-15-2008 12:18 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2008 1:00 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 77 by Admin, posted 03-15-2008 8:42 AM ICANT has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 72 of 326 (460432)
03-15-2008 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
03-15-2008 12:08 AM


ICANT - 24 hour suspension
Your big bang / universe origin fixation is not on-topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2008 12:08 AM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 73 of 326 (460437)
03-15-2008 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
03-15-2008 12:08 AM


Re: defining faith
But it is the topic.
Message 392 of 410 03-10-2008 11:43 AM When you posted this message you were 100% positive that expansion was a fact. The only way you could have been that sure was by your FAITH. You just proved that with msg 70.
No, I did not. I told you it's as much of a fact as gravity - its a process we have directly observed. We may be wrong in our model of that process, but the models have both proven to be so highly accurate that we no longer really doubt them, because they are based on mountains of objective evidence and constant experience.
Gravity, evolution, the big Bang, all of these are models that so accurately reflect our Universe that they are basically considered "factual," even though technically each is still tentative. None are based on faith, and the statement that the expansion of the Universe is a fact is also not a statement of faith, because it is based on objective evidence.
I know you have faith in what you believe, but I got to have something a little bit stronger than your word.
I don't have faith, ICANT. That's part of the point. Like Stile, I try very hard to make sure that I don't take anything on faith. I trust based on experience, I infer based on evidence, but I don't believe anything based on faith.
I await your evidence on this point.
I'm going to be very direct: I will not rehash cosmological theory with you again. I dont care if you even tie it to the topic of this thread - I used up all of my patience with you on that subject in the other threads. We provided a great deal of evidence. The fact that you are incapable of understanding it only means that further discussion will increase my blood pressure, and I don't see the point.
Very observant.
Then we move to your statement: "the universe simply exists".
But you were referring to T=10-43 as you had several times when we had discussed the Big Bang.
Now you either accept the fact that the universe simply exists at T=10-43 by "FAITH" or you have reproducible, objective, testable evidence to support this assertion.
Big Bang cosmology is based entirely upon objective, testable, reproducible evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and the redshift of distant galaxies. All of the predictions made that we can test are highly accurate. Extrapolating backwards to earlier points in time involves rational, logical and mathematical inference. When models of the distant past are extrapolated back to the present, the results are uncannily similar to the Universe we see today.
Objective, repeatable, testable evidence has allowed us to derive a highly accurate model that predicts that the Universe exists at certain states at certain points in time. This is not faith. This is a scientific model, and as we have shown repeatedly in this thread, the two are very different.
Of course, had you thought more about your comment, you would realize that no matter when or how the Universe "begins," there is always a T=0 and a T=10^-43. The only case where the Universe does not exist in both of those cases is if the Universe existed eternally backwards. Current evidence does not suggest infinite time regression (it's possible, but without evidence it's irrelevant).
Clearly, the Universe exists at T=10^-43, because in order for time to exist, the Universe, part of which is time, must also exist.
This isn't faith, ICANT, it's simply logical reasoning.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2008 12:08 AM ICANT has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 74 of 326 (460441)
03-15-2008 2:08 AM


all you do, you do by faith.
How can you perceive reality and say that your reality as perceived is the true reality?
It is based on your perception.
But what then can you say is definite in anything?
You say red is red. But we are not discussing the color red when discussing science. Your math is tentative. Your science is tentative. And only by faith can you study a "maybe" and believe it to be true enough to continue to study.
As you disagree, then so be it. But until you have answered: what is reality? and; what is existence? All that you perceive is potentially false and only by faith.
You have agreed that science is tentative. not definite. Then by your own admission: You study the truth of it, by accepting its potential not truth, but still do study it, on faith, that your calculations are reliable. So it is faith.
I have not answered all my replies individually because i have been set to a 30 minute limit on posting, and i dont have the time to come here every 30 minutes to make a post.
So for now, I wish to withdraw from this site, and go where God inspires me to do his work. As i have given you what he has shown me, so then observe it, study it , or not study it. The choice is yours.
God be with us all. And Gods will be done. So be it.
-Tim Brown

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 03-15-2008 6:02 AM tesla has replied
 Message 78 by lyx2no, posted 03-15-2008 9:18 AM tesla has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 326 (460448)
03-15-2008 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by tesla
03-15-2008 2:08 AM


Universal assumption
tesla writes:
How can you perceive reality and say that your reality as perceived is the true reality?
Why do you bother typing such phrases if you cannot know whether you know whether you know if they have meaning?
It is based on your perception.
How do you know?
But what then can you say is definite in anything?
Indeed.
You say red is red.
How do you know I do?
Your math is tentative. Your science is tentative. And only by faith can you study a "maybe" and believe it to be true enough to continue to study.
It's just your perception that it requires faith to study a maybe.
As you disagree, then so be it. But until you have answered: what is reality? and; what is existence? All that you perceive is potentially false and only by faith.
Why do you keep treating that dog on your desk as a computer?
You have agreed that science is tentative. not definite. Then by your own admission: You study the truth of it, by accepting its potential not truth, but still do study it, on faith, that your calculations are reliable. So it is faith.
Science relies only on one assumption: That there is an observable reality. It's the same assumption that you make when you treat your computer as a computer. If you use the word "faith" in that sense, it becomes fairly meaningless, because we have no choice in the matter. If you don't accept the reality you percieve, then you are just as likely to walk over the edge of a 400 foot cliff as to stop at the edge of it, and you could just as well eat shit as food, or drink arsenic as water. You would be dead very quickly.
No rational thought process is required to make this assumption. Babies trust the apparent reality around them by instinct, and so do simple creatures like fish or worms. Science isn't using faith, unless you think a new born baby has to have faith that its mother exists.
The assumption of science is one all people have to make, have been making since babyhood, and will make throughout their lives.
Edited by bluegenes, : Changed title that was initially designed for a different post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by tesla, posted 03-15-2008 2:08 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by tesla, posted 03-15-2008 12:01 PM bluegenes has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024