Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do Intelligent Design People act?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 16 of 55 (502762)
03-13-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
03-13-2009 8:04 AM


An easy trap to fall into
Peg writes:
its strange that you say that in light of Dembski's article which is about a christian school being prohibited from teaching ID in its own science classes
If this were true, I'd agree with you.
The problem is that the Christian school either:
A. Wants state-recognition for the diplomas it hands out
or
B. Is supported by public tax-payer money
Either way... if you want one of those two things, you can't just teach "whatever you want" in your school. If you want state recognition for what you teach... you need to teach science in your science class. If you want to use tax-payer's money... you need to teach science in your science class.
Is such a "demand" really all that strange?
Doesn't it sound kind of... expected... that, if you want to be state-recognized, then you should follow the teaching requirements of the state?
If they want to be a privately-funded school... and not have their diplomas recognized by the state... then they're free to teach their kids whatever they'ed like.
But it's irresponsible of the state to allow any school to grant diplomas to children who have been taught things in science class that are easily shown to not be science at all.
Do you think Dembski and this school should be allowed to teach the "Magical Trevor's Unicorn theory of Gravity" in science because they think it's best their children learn of how unicorns push things around?
No, because that's not science... and it's not science because it has no supporting evidence.
ID is exactly the same thing. It's not science... because it has no supporting evidence.
No one is stopping ID from doing some real, actual science... go through the scientific procedures... and then enter into the schools (once the data, experiments, tests and conclusions can be verified, of course).
But ID doesn't want to do this.
ID doesn't want to do this because they have no data, no experiments, no tests, and none of their conclusions can be verified.
So why, exactly (other then the guilt trip Dembski just played on you) do you think ID should be allowed to be taught in science class?
This is how ID people act. They make you feel guilty. They make you feel pity. They try to present this case that they're not being treated equally.
But, in reality, they are being treated equally, they're just not doing any of the work.
What if the guy who came in 2nd place at the 100m dash started walking around saying how "unfair" it was that he didn't get gold? That he should have a gold medal too because he worked just as hard... trained just as much... he's not being treated equally?
What if (more similar to the case of ID) I started saying I worked just as hard and also deserve the gold medal? After all, I'm a person too so that makes us equal. Shouldn't I be treated equally? Are you saying I'm not a person? The guy who won the 100m dash is not a person? Shouldn't we keep it fair and equal and give both of us gold medals?
...this is what ID does, and you just fell for it.
It's one thing to say things "should be equal." It's another thing to show that they should be equal. ID skips the showing part, and expects people to fall for their words alone.
Don't feel bad though, ID's movement has had almost 100 years to perfect their art of trapping good-hearted people like yourself.
Again, you don't have to take my word for it. Ask some questions... ask the ID people about their definitions and what sort of experiments they have in mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:04 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:12 AM Stile has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 55 (502772)
03-13-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Stile
03-13-2009 8:22 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
Stile writes:
Either way... if you want one of those two things, you can't just teach "whatever you want" in your school. If you want state recognition for what you teach... you need to teach science in your science class. If you want to use tax-payer's money... you need to teach science in your science class.
Is such a "demand" really all that strange?
Doesn't it sound kind of... expected... that, if you want to be state-recognized, then you should follow the teaching requirements of the state?
yes i see what you're saying there...they have to conform if they want to get recognition.
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
Stile writes:
If they want to be a privately-funded school... and not have their diplomas recognized by the state... then they're free to teach their kids whatever they'ed like.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief?
This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice.
I wonder if this is why the ID movement has become politicized??
Stile writes:
ID is exactly the same thing. It's not science... because it has no supporting evidence.
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. (Keeping in mind that i've never read any ID literature, so i dont really know exactly what they say)
We agree that the science is the study of many disciplines, why is ID (which seems to be the study of the designs in living things) not considered a science. If they just said 'that is a tree and God did it' and said not more, then i'd agree that its not science. But if they are studying the processes of the tree and determining how the tree functions etc, surely that is a science.
Can it be shown otherwise???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 8:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 03-13-2009 9:21 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM Peg has replied
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM Peg has replied
 Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 10:04 AM Peg has replied
 Message 23 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-13-2009 10:06 AM Peg has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 55 (502776)
03-13-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
03-13-2009 7:38 AM


It is another thing to look at the world and find features in it that can be reliably correlated with intelligent agency.
It would indeed be another thing. However, no one has ever shown how to do this. In fact the world shows us the opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 7:38 AM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 55 (502777)
03-13-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
03-13-2009 9:12 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
Such as? In biology there is no other theory that is in its true sense science. What else, tidlywinks?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:12 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 20 of 55 (502779)
03-13-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
03-13-2009 9:12 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
Peg writes:
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
For the same two reasons that all scientific theories that are taught in school are taught:
Everything we've ever been able to observe, test, and verify confirms the theory.
Nothing we've ever been able to observe, test, and verify negates the theory.
Again, finding something against the grain for either of those things for any scientific theory (including evolution) is the stuff nobel prizes and scientific dreams are made of.
It's quite possible, but when it happens we need to be sure it can be verified, and that it's honestly right. Not just because some group of folk say "hey, we want to be equal!" without showing how they're actually unequal in the first place. Because, hey, "Stile wants his gold medal too!" just doesn't cut it.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief?
This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice.
What are you talking about? Who's not free to believe anything they want to? No one is stiffling any beliefs. Everyone is free to believe in ID all they want. All they are being restricted from is the ability to teach it in science class as a science.
They have even been welcomed to teach their ID in schools in religious classes. How is that not fair?
That's how the ID people act, they get you to think that "belief" is only possible from a science class. Does that sound right to you? Should religion be in science? It sounds like it's the ID people who are actually going against the constitution by not letting children have their right to learn the honest, scientific truth about science.
I wonder if this is why the ID movement has become politicized??
It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion?
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific.
If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific.
If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific.
If Stile walks into his front yard, picks up a blade of grass and says "wow, this is flat! It must be green because I had a dream last night about green dragons!" This is "studying nature". However, it's not scientific, so it's not science.
If ID walks into their front yard, picks up a blade of grass and says "wow, this is designed! It must be designed because I just plain think it is!" This is "studying nature". However, it's not scientific, so it's not science.
If they just said 'that is a tree and God did it' and said not more, then i'd agree that its not science.
I'm glad we agree.
But if they are studying the processes of the tree and determining how the tree functions etc, surely that is a science.
Of course it would be. But they're not doing this. They've never done this.
Can you show that they do this? No one ever has so far. That's why the judge ruled against them in court, because they don't do this. It's really rather simple.
Can it be shown otherwise???
Of course it can. It's been shown otherwise everytime they've gone to court. It's been shown otherwise right here in this thread to you. There is no scientific ID procedures or methods, they don't exist. If you know of one, it will be the first (ever!) to be produced. Funny how Dembski and Behe have been saying they're working on this for over 20 years... and still can't even define a method? Or even the word "design?!?" How many years does it take to define the very word that describes your organization? It's ludicrous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:12 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:42 PM Stile has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 21 of 55 (502780)
03-13-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
03-13-2009 9:12 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
Hi Peg,
quote:
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
Evolution is not any kind of "primary discipline". If there is such a thing in science, it is probably physics. Evolution is however, the scientific concept that most upsets fundamentalists. That is why it is singled out in these debates, not because of any primacy within science, but because some people don't like the fact that it contravenes Genesis.
Having said that, within the specific field of biology, evolution is the central principle. Without it, nothing would make sense. If you want to teach biology (and why wouldn't you) you need to include evolution. To do otherwise would be to do a disservice to the students.
quote:
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief?
This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice.
I totally disagree. Students are expected to learn about evolution. They are not expected to agree with it. They are free to believe whatever they like. Wouldn't you want to learn about evolution anyway, even if you disagreed with it? Surely that would mean that you had made an informed choice in rejecting it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
quote:
I wonder if this is why the ID movement has become politicized??
ID is politicised for the same reasons that other forms of creationism are politicised; some people just can't handle the challenge that evolution presents to their religious beliefs.
I believe that the first law to mention evolution in the US was the Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution and eventually led to the Scopes "Monkey Trial". That was religiously motivated and the history of creationism and evolution in the US courts has followed this same pattern.
quote:
We agree that the science is the study of many disciplines, why is ID (which seems to be the study of the designs in living things) not considered a science. If they just said 'that is a tree and God did it' and said not more, then i'd agree that its not science. But if they are studying the processes of the tree and determining how the tree functions etc, surely that is a science.
But ID isn't interested in determining anything. All they are interested in is propping up creationism.
Take Behe's blood clotting argument for example. He claims that the "irreducible complexity" of the human blood clotting cascade presents a difficulty for evolutionary theory. And he's right to an extent; a gap in our explanatory framework is undesirable to say the least. But does Behe attempt to close this gap, by working out how the cascade might have evolved? No. He simply throws up his hands and says "No! I can't work out how it evolved, so therefore it didn't evolve.".
A real scientist would attempt to close gaps in our knowledge (and indeed, others have solved Behe's blood clotting problem), but ID types are much happier with the gap itself. Oh joy! A gap! A place for our Gap God to hide!
ID isn't interested in determining anything. They are more interested in finding puzzles and deliberately leaving them unsolved, in an effort to bamboozle the general public into thinking that there is a problem with the ToE. This is not science, in fact, it's about as far from science as you can get without actually painting your face and doing a rain-dance.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:12 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-13-2009 10:11 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:50 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 10:09 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 22 of 55 (502783)
03-13-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
03-13-2009 9:12 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
I'm taking physics, chemistry, Earth sciences and biology with 1087, 979, 376 and 689 pages respectively. Both the Earth sciences and biology texts mention evolution for a grand total of 37 pages. I think we do better in my Catholic school then the kids in the public schools.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief?
This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice.
We're also not allowed to teach auto mechanics in history classes, pottery in math classes or astronomy in English classes. We are, however, allowed to teach them in there own right.
ID is a bit troublesome in that regard because it is certainly religious in nature, and narrowly religious at that. That makes it's rightful place a narrowly tailored, religious class, which requires the government to support some religions over others.
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific.
ID is not the study of nature in that it is not study at all. It is indoctrination. ID (creationism) was the paradigm of natural history until someone made the mistake of studying it.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:12 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 10:18 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 23 of 55 (502784)
03-13-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
03-13-2009 9:12 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
There is no "primary discipline".** No one doing science suggests that science is "all biology, all the time". The only reason discussions like this, and boards like this, exist is the attempt of the religious to force their religion into that field. The public prominence of evolutionary theory is a creation of the creationists. If there were no creationists, evolution would just be another quiet part of the scientific spectrum.
The whole public "controversy" is manufactured. It could just as easily be about some other subset of science but for the fact that most of science is not perceived as threatening to religious fundamentalists. I must say, though, that this is not true of the leadership of the ID movement. Their literature (ie. wedge document) make it clear that their goal is to suborn all of science to their theology.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief?
Personal belief has nothing to do with public policy. People are free to believe what they wish. They are not free to misrepresent that belief as something it is not. I might believe that peanuts are fruit, but i cannot sell "all fruit jelly" with peanuts in it at the supermarket. This whole controversy is just purely and simply about religious people lying about science. Lying. Period. Once you understand that, you will understand why so many religious believers hold IDists in contempt.
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. (Keeping in mind that i've never read any ID literature, so i dont really know exactly what they say)
Because they are not "studying" nature. Looking at a sunset and saying things about it is not "studying" it in the scientific sense. This is a labeling issue. If looking at sunsets and flagella make you think about God, fine. Write a book, get it taught in literature class. But it's not science.
Capt.
** - Well, OK, physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:12 AM Peg has not replied

  
hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 24 of 55 (502785)
03-13-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stile
03-13-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Feel free to look around
Stile writes:
it isn't acceptable now, and it's not likely that it ever will be as long as honest, rigorous discovery is the goal of science
Well said.
I remember my high school physics teacher, Doc Harvey, sitting us down and saying that he believed everything he would teach us, but only after weighing the evidence, and the main point of his lessons would be that we should do the same and never take him on authority. He was the best.

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 8:06 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 11:56 AM hari has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 25 of 55 (502787)
03-13-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Granny Magda
03-13-2009 9:45 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
Damn, Granny, I've got to stop making breakfast mid post! You have redundantified me!
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 26 of 55 (502789)
03-13-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
03-13-2009 7:38 AM


Peg writes:
The 'scientific method' goes along the lines of...
Observe, Theorize, Test, Conclude
That’s my understanding too, except that more often than not it goes
Observe, Theorize, Test, Fail, Throw the theory in the trash and start over
My understanding of ID is
Observe the target audience, Make up a theory that sounds plausable, Conclude
As others here have said, it misses the whole point of science — curiosity about the nature world. If taught anywhere, it would be in The Politics Of Mind Control 101 or The History of Dishonest Marketing.

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 7:38 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 27 of 55 (502799)
03-13-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by hari
03-13-2009 10:09 AM


Re: Feel free to look around
hari writes:
I remember my high school physics teacher, Doc Harvey, sitting us down and saying that he believed everything he would teach us, but only after weighing the evidence, and the main point of his lessons would be that we should do the same and never take him on authority. He was the best.
Those sorts of people certainly do make the best teachers.
As a gerneral note, it is a difficult manner even for athiestic scientists to not let external emotions influence their work at all times.
That's why we have the scientific method, and why it must be strictly adhered to. When adhered to (along with the peer review system) we are guaranteed that our personal opinions are not guiding any of the results... no matter what (religious or non-religious) those peronal opinions are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hari, posted 03-13-2009 10:09 AM hari has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 55 (502890)
03-13-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stile
03-13-2009 9:45 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
Stile writes:
It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion?
abuse children???
how does ID amount to abuse???
Stile writes:
If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific.
If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific.
ok so that brings me back to the question of why the study of nature and the search for design is not scientific.
Is it because there is already the presumption that the blade of grass has been designed?
if so, could they not study the blade of grass to explain how the design works and what shows that it is in fact designed.?
Stile writes:
Of course it would be. But they're not doing this. They've never done this.
Can you show that they do this? No one ever has so far. That's why the judge ruled against them in court, because they don't do this. It's really rather simple.
ok well as i said, i've never read any ID books.... so i'll go to the book store today and find a book on ID to see what its all about... when i've done so i'll come back and tell you what i think.
Does anyone have any suggestions on a book to start with?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 03-13-2009 10:12 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 03-16-2009 7:16 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 03-16-2009 9:19 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 55 (502891)
03-13-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Granny Magda
03-13-2009 9:45 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
GM writes:
ID is politicised for the same reasons that other forms of creationism are politicised; some people just can't handle the challenge that evolution presents to their religious beliefs.
I believe that the first law to mention evolution in the US was the Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution and eventually led to the Scopes "Monkey Trial". That was religiously motivated and the history of creationism and evolution in the US courts has followed this same pattern.
thats unfortunate really
they are only threatened by it because they dont understand the bible enough to be able to defend it.
The problem I see is that they've become so tangled up in dogma and bad interpretation and bad translating that their understanding is completely out of harmony with known facts ie, 24hr creative day, earth at center of universe etc
then when science provides evidence to the contrary, rather then adjusting their understanding and reexamining their translations, they put up a fight and make themselves look like raving lunatics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 03-15-2009 7:36 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 55 (502892)
03-13-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Granny Magda
03-13-2009 9:45 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
GM writes:
Take Behe's blood clotting argument for example. He claims that the "irreducible complexity" of the human blood clotting cascade presents a difficulty for evolutionary theory. And he's right to an extent; a gap in our explanatory framework is undesirable to say the least. But does Behe attempt to close this gap, by working out how the cascade might have evolved? No. He simply throws up his hands and says "No! I can't work out how it evolved, so therefore it didn't evolve.".
A real scientist would attempt to close gaps in our knowledge
im not taking sides here, but if he was able to determine this why couldnt evolutionists determine this
AND if behe is unable to find the gap, and evolutionists are unable to find the gap, then doesnt this put the evolutionary theory in doubt?
and if so, why are evolutionists teaching the conclusion before finding the gap? That is not really the scientific method at work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 03-14-2009 12:22 PM Peg 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