|
Author
|
Topic: Creation as Science
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.1
|
quote:
i would disagree. no one has ever believed that the earth was flat. at best, that was an old sailor's tale or bedtime story to scare little children. read Hapgood's 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings'.
This is simply false. Although the sphericity of the Earth was discovered much earlier than many people think there were certainly ancient cultures that believed in a flat Earth (such as the Egyptians) and even in relatively modern times there were some who still believed it.
quote:
again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it.
Modern technology depends on science. Without science we would not have modern computers.
quote:
which means that its credibility to discover and proclaim the truth is shot and demonstrates that it never knows what the truth is and tellspeople it needs to be ignored.
This proclaims the infallibility of the closed mind. It explains a lot. Unfortunately refusing to accept that you are wrong does not make you right. The open mindedness of science is one of the reasons that it deserves to be given credibility, since it allows for the removal of error. And to the extent that creationists reject this open-mindedness they are being unscientific - an important point to remember.
quote:
First, the act:
Now the creation act is a one time affair but then so is the origination of the process of evolution and its initial interaction with the original life form. the origin of life and the origin of the process cannot be repeated thus like creation, secularists ONLY study the supposed results of this process, and this takes millions of years, so they say. whereas the results of creation can be studied by anyone at anytime. so thi gives creation the advantage for qualification over the process of evolution.
Here you are incorrect. The actual processes of evolution are studied in the laboratory and the field. The processes of creation are unobserved. The only "products of creation" that we may observe are human creations and even there we may use processes resembling evolution to good effect. Thus the advantage is to evolution.
quote:
Second, original condition: for creation we know the orginal conditions for say reproduction. a man, woman, a bed or couch. plus we know that the air, the universe, the oceans, the geography were all about the same as they are now (give or take a flood , pollution etc.) we do not need to guess at what conditions were present for reproduction the creation way.
And yet the theory of evolution says nothing different about human reproduction so creationism has no advantage there. (In fact many Young Earth Creationists propose some allegedly significant differences in environment prior to the Flood - and without any physical evidence to support such a claim, so creationism is actually at a disadvantage by your own criterion). Presumably you are referring to the very different conditions on the primordial Earth. However, what we know of these conditions IS based on physical evidence. If your point is that creationists simply close their minds to this evidence and its implications then it is another disadvantage to creationism.
quote:
there is no ancient record, no ancient civilization, nothing fom the ancient world that reveals the evolutionary original conditions. which means that even if the scientists think they got it right, they would never know if they did or not, for the theory of evolution, it is all a guess and no confirmation. another advantage for creation.
In other words you claim that creationism is more scientific than evolution because it treats ancient myths as unquestionable fact, while rejecting all the evidence to the contrary. Another disadvantage to creationism (and in itself sufficient to disqualify it).
quote:
Third, replication: now as i said, evolutionists and creationists can only test the results of each. For creationists, that is not difficult and as i have used this example many times before, one just has to visit the nurseries for the life forms inhabiting the planet today and one will see replication in process. We also see the sun and moon rise and fall each day, the stars at night and so it goes. each stage of the creation act we can see take place and we do not even need a test tube to observe it. BUT with the theory and process of evolution, there is no replication of its supposed work because no one can replicate the original conditions to transform a specimen to change like the examples given in the fossil record.
In other words you CALL ordinary reproductive biology "creation". Unfortunately you are wrong. The "creation" you need to examine is divine creation without parents. This is completely unobserved. On the other hand evolutionary processes can be observed in the laboratory and the field. Advantage to evolution
quote:
these men and women are also jumping the gun. they are taking existing animals and applying foreign substances to see what will take place, but they forget that the process, did not such thing nor had capibilities to perform such acts thus all these experiments are producing false results which are then credited to the theory.
If this were true it would apply to all experiments. Practically all experiments rely on setting up artificial conditions. Thus this is simply another attack on science. Thus, even using your own examples evolution is science and creationism is not only utterly disqualified, it is revealed as being opposed to science, attacking both experimentation and the (conservative) open-mindedness that science requires.
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
Moderator Request
Hi Archaeologist, I think it would help the discussion if you could resolve what looks like a contradiction. In your opening post you said you would show how creation qualifies as secular science:
archaeologist in Message 1 writes: This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science. But then you seem to have an odd opinion of what the "secular principles and rules" of science are. For instance, in Message 42 you say you don't believe science is responsible for technological innovation:
archaeologist in Message 42 writes: bluescat48 writes: If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it. And here in this message you say you think science should have different rules:
i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science... Unlike what you stated in your opening post, you now seem intent on demonstrating that current approaches to science are invalid and that creation follows a different but demonstrably better approach. Could you please clarify which one it is you're trying to do? The people you're discussing with have a right to know whether you're trying to do what you said in your opening post (the one I judged fit for promotion), or what you've said more recently. Please, no replies to this message.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2125 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Truth?
which means that its credibility to discover and proclaim the truth is shot and demonstrates that it never knows what the truth is and tellspeople it needs to be ignored. Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source So you go ahead and proclaim truth, Truth, TRUTH, and even TRVTH!!! Let scientists get on with what they do.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 49 of 83 (576057)
08-22-2010 4:59 PM
|
|
|
how can i reply to clarify if there is no right to reply? as far as i am concerned the answers to bluescat were not part of the body of the main text andi was very clear about that. the body of my last post was consistant with the OP. but i see people are nitpicking again on minor issues to avoid the reality and finding things to nag about that distract and refuse to discuss with an open mind. case in point:
Here you are incorrect. The actual processes of evolution are studied in the laboratory and the field. The processes of creation are unobserved. The only "products of creation" that we may observe are human creations and even there we may use processes resembling evolution to good effect. the harpingof the party line even when shown that evolution is NOT studied at all. thenthe denial of creation when shown that all they are studying is really the results of the creative act under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world. this is further proof of why creationists cannot discuss with evoklutionists, the evolutinist resorts to blind denial and repetitive chanting of the evolutionary party line. the only people with a closed mind are the evolutionists as they refuse to discuss alternatives. that wholepost seems to be an effort to convince the poster that evolution is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. i have yet to see any secularist on this board actually andhonestly discuss the issues raised.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 5:11 PM | | archaeologist has replied | | | Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2010 5:21 PM | | archaeologist has replied | | | Message 57 by Admin, posted 08-22-2010 8:14 PM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin If you want to do science, you need to be ready to throw away every conclusion, including the myths of the Bible. Until you are ready to toss the Bible away as science or history you can NEVER do science. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 51 of 83 (576062)
08-22-2010 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
08-22-2010 6:07 AM
|
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin on second thought i will make a couple comments to this post:
certainly ancient cultures that believed in a flat Earth (such as the Egyptians) and even in relatively modern times there were some who still believed it. having studied the ancient cultures i know this is not true.
Modern technology depends on science. Without science we would not have modern computers. noit doesn't., it relies upon the intelligence God gave men, without that there would be no 'science'.
This proclaims the infallibility of the closed mind. It explains a lot. Unfortunately refusing to accept that you are wrong does not make you right doesn't deal with the issues raised and only describes yourself.
And yet the theory of evolution says nothing different about human reproduction having dealt with this issue before, i know that it does and that there is NO NEED for the present reproduction system inthetheory of evolution andne need to think it was needed. but i see that for everyone one of your blanket denials and empty statements you cannot provide one legitimate credible link or reference to support your position. REMEMBER the burden of proof is on you to support your contrary position. i have no burden of proof because i stand with the truth and you all are the ones rejecting the truth that has been known since time began. so support your side.
In other words you claim that creationism is more scientific than evolution because it treats ancient myths as unquestionable fact, while rejecting all the evidence to the contrary. Another disadvantage to creationism (and in itself sufficient to disqualify it). shows bias, closed-mindedness and other supposed NON-scientific thought which means everything you say is non-scientific and rejected.
what we know of these conditions IS based on physical evidence. there is NO physical evidence to support the evolutionary idea of original conditions.
Practically all experiments rely on setting up artificial conditions. Thus this is simply another attack on science.
no it is not an 'attack' onscience, it is pointing out the reality that you really are NOT studying evolution at all. you are studying what you want and calling it evolutionary which makes it all a lie.
for creation we do not need to do this at all nor do we need a science lab to understand anything about life, its origins and so forth.
how does it feel to be rendered useless. as i said, there is a place for scientific work, things like photosynthesis, flooding, or whatever but science is actually worthless and useless when it comes to origins because it cannot deal with the reality. it has to make things up to feel some worth. that is just sad and pathetic. there ARE NO natural answers to origins and science is incapable of dealing with this fact because they have to alter their lives, their thinking, and throw out their life's work. i have clearly shown that creation can qualify as science for it fits the basic rules secularists have come up with to exclude it but when those rules are applied to their own theory, their theory is excluded instead and so far i have not seen one real argument that is openminded and grounded in legitimate support to refute one thing i have said. all i get are blind denials and the making of mountains out of molehills. deal with what i wrote and let's see if you are honest enough to discuss properly. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2010 6:07 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2010 5:50 PM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.1
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin You know instead of simply parroting the creationist party line and whining when people don't accept it you could produce actual evidence. Instead of just claiming that you did, even though it isn't true. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 53 of 83 (576064)
08-22-2010 5:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
08-22-2010 5:11 PM
|
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin If you want to do science, you need to be ready to throw away every conclusion, including the myths of the Bible. Until you are ready to toss the Bible away as science or history you can NEVER do science. no i don't because secular scientists donot do so. they refuse to consider one alternative to evolution and their work is all prejudiced by their evolutionary bias. there is no objectivity and i have shown thatto be true in other posts. that comment is just ridiculous and untrue. there has never been a discovery that has shown creation or the Bible to be false, but there has been myriads that have shown evolution to be non-existent and a lie. creation doe snot go by the demands of secularist, the secularist must go by God's rules, which means that they have to humble themselves to HIm not vice versa. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 5:11 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 6:02 PM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 54 of 83 (576065)
08-22-2010 5:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
08-22-2010 5:21 PM
|
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin You know instead of simply parroting the creationist party line and whining when people don't accept it you could produce actual evidence. Instead of just claiming that you did, even though it isn't true. yet i didn't do that and i did show that you will not honestly discuss, you blindly refuse to entertain alternatives, thus the only closed-minded person is you and do not hide behind the 'evidence' factor because no evolutionist can provide real evidence for their theory. my question is: where are the real, honest, and legitimate rebuttals to what i said and supported by real legitimate evidence? Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2010 5:21 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.1
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin quote:
having studied the ancient cultures i know this is not true.
As usual your "knowledge" is wrong. Wikipedia, for all it's faults is reasonable for basics like:
When envisioning the shape of the cosmos, the Egyptians saw the earth as a flat expanse of land, personified by the god Geb, over which arched the sky goddess Nut
quote:
noit doesn't., it relies upon the intelligence God gave men, without that there would be no 'science'.
This is a false dichotomy. Without human intelligence - whatever it's origin - there would be no science - but without science we would not have all todays technology.
quote:
doesn't deal with the issues raised and only describes yourself.
False on both counts. You described the open-mindedness of science as a reason to reject it. Apparently if science did not admit to and correct its errors you would find it more believable.
quote:
having dealt with this issue before, i know that it does and that there is NO NEED for the present reproduction system inthetheory of evolution andne need to think it was needed. but i see that for everyone one of your blanket denials and empty statements you cannot provide one legitimate credible link or reference to support your position.
Since you don't provide any links or evidence to support your position I don't need to provide any more to refute it. Especially when many of your claims are obviously false to any informed person. And the above is a case in point. You do not "KNOW" if any respect of human reproduction that should be different if evolution was true.
quote:
REMEMBER the burden of proof is on you to support your contrary position. i have no burden of proof because i stand with the truth and you all are the ones rejecting the truth that has been known since time began. so support your side.
In fact the burden is on you to support your claims. Claiming that you are on the side of the truth doesn't exempt you from that. It wouldn't even if it were true.
quote:
no it is not an 'attack' onscience, it is pointing out the reality that you really are NOT studying evolution at all. you are studying what you want and calling it evolutionary which makes it all a lie.
Of course it is an attack on science because it claims that experiments CANNOT be taken as a guide to what takes place in nature. The mere fact of human intervention supposedly invalidates the experiment. In reality experiments - properly conducted - can tell us about the processes going on in nature. By making a blanket attack on experiments in general you are simply taking a kneejerk anti-science view.
quote:
for creation we do not need to do this at all nor do we need a science lab to understand anything about life, its origins and so forth.
Because creationism cares only for dogma, not for truth. Which is why it is not science.
quote:
i have clearly shown that creation can qualify as science for it fits the basic rules secularists have come up with to exclude it but when those rules are applied to their own theory, their theory is excluded instead and so far i have not seen one real argument that is openminded and grounded in legitimate support to refute one thing i have said. all i get are blind denials and the making of mountains out of molehills.
In fact you have clearly shown that creationism is not science, and in fact that it is opposed to science. ll you can do is make blind assertions, sometimes even laughable (You know there was a time when I would find it hard to think that a creationist would actually try to claim that biological reproduction was divine creation. I would have thought it too crazy for anyone. But you did it, and I still think it possible that you are a real creationist - because real creationists DO come out with crazy nonsense). Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin archaeologist writes: there has never been a discovery that has shown creation or the Bible to be false, but there has been myriads that have shown evolution to be non-existent and a lie. You simply post falsehoods yet again. You have been taught this before but I will present it again.
quote:
Of course it does Buz. Have you ever read the Bible? In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT... If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
That genetic marker is NOT there. The Biblical Flood has been refuted.
The Biblical Flood is refuted and shown to be false.
archaeologist writes: creation doe snot go by the demands of secularist, the secularist must go by God's rules, which means that they have to humble themselves to HIm not vice versa. Then it is not science. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
Moderator Request
archaeologist writes: how can i reply to clarify if there is no right to reply? As a moderator I'm not a participant in the discussion. The clarification should be addressed to the participants, not to me. Please make the clarifications I requested in Message 47. Please, no replies to this message. Problems and issues with discussion should be taken to Report discussion problems here: No.2.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 58 of 83 (576175)
08-23-2010 4:13 AM
|
|
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin Because creationism cares only for dogma, not for truth. Which is why it is not science. there in lies the problem. you assume that because it is in the Bible it is dogma not truth and you assume that secular science is the only perveyor of truth. both assumptions would be wrong and shows that you do not have a standard for discerning right and wrong, truth or error. since we know that no scientific discovery, no archaeological discovery, et al, has proven the Bible wrong we can be at rest knwoing tis record is verified and tells the truth, not dogma. whereas with secular science, permeated with secular people who possess unregenerated minds,who are not of God, is fallible. limited, and subject to the corruption that entered the world at adam's sin it is almost impossible for it to tell the truth and present evolutionary dogma instead. secular science is the blind leading the blind and it is publically stated that it is designed to look for natural answers which automatically tells you it is not looking for the truth but alternative answers that fits its purpose.
Unlike what you stated in your opening post, you now seem intent on demonstrating that current approaches to science are invalid and that creation follows a different but demonstrably better approach. I do not see any contradiction. yes i posted an article i wrote that demonstrates that creation can fit the secular scientific model in some places and could be considered science by secular rules. i do not have any 'odd opinion about the secular principles...' because i took those straight from secular scientist websites and showed how creation fits into most categories if you let. the issue here is though the scientific exploration is altered because humans are NOT designing a new origin of man, they are limited to using science as it was intended: study plant processes, how lightening and thunder work, figuring out electricity and so on. but since secular man is not satisfied with the correct origins, they want to create an build their own history using science to lead the way.
And here in this message you say you think science should have different rules: Unlike what you stated in your opening post, you now seem intent on demonstrating that current approaches to science are invalid and that creation follows a different but demonstrably better approach. yes i do think that but that does not take away from the demonstration that creation qualifies as science under secular rules. those secular rules are too restrictive, too limited and exclude important data which renders it useless to obtain the truth. which limits the use of creation in science for creation does not follow th esecular way thus to obtain the truth, secular science has to change--not creation. ***i hope that answers the confusion, as i am not sure what he is getting at. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by Admin, posted 08-23-2010 8:08 AM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 59 of 83 (576176)
08-23-2010 4:19 AM
|
|
|
Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin in the OP and in the other post i made, i just wanted to open up discussion about creation as science and demonstrated that the act qualified better than evolution as science , as science is defined today. yes new rules need to be implemented in the scientific field for the truth is not told nor searched for and as i pointed out the 'artifical studies' are NOT replicating claimed evolutionary changes thus evolution cannot be considered science at all. the experiments are false and result in the wrong conclusions. what is being exposed here is the double standard secular science has and th hypocrisy. it demands one thing from creation and creationists but it is something the evolutionists cannot do or refuses to do with their own theory. one must also consider how secular scientists define evolution. it is not human, it is not natural so is it really supernatural? and if it is, then why is it included in scientific endeavors? science looks for natural answers but the process seems to act ina supernatuiral way altering life forms withits supposed 'powers'. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by hotjer, posted 08-23-2010 6:25 AM | | archaeologist has replied |
|
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4563 days) Posts: 113 From: Denmark Joined: 04-02-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
If we use God as a variable in an equation we can get any result. God just makes it happens. Since that is the case creationism cannot be accepted as science. That is what people mean when they speak about prediction. A scientist makes an equation, include some variables, calculate and see if his calculation/prediction is correct or not. In the case of God as a variable; we can just predict any result "if we put this into the variable either this, or this, or this or this etc. will happen". When scientists are trying to understand natural phenomena this would of course not be helpful in any way. Science is about understanding and knowledge, not about the truth/meaning of life in a religious point of view. You talk about the "hypocrisy" towards creationism and ToE. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. My interpretation of what you write is somehow like this: "Because Yahweh have created the world and everything, therefore evolution cannot be true, but I understand you are close-minded and therefore you should simply accept the Bible as the truth in your way of thinking or to say; your close-minded way of thinking. Therefore, I present, to you, a way of understanding this; a way for you to understand the complexity within your own framework." etc. If this is the case I understand why we have a hard time to communicate with each other. Your process of thoughts is very similar to the people of the historical Jerusalem, Judah, and Israel while we think more like the Greeks. We understand the world in two very contrary ways. Basically, you could say we think in cosmos/chaos/eternity and you think the creation/destruction/ending. Which such different fundamental way of understanding the world, then no wonder we cannot communicate with each other. We want to understand, not just accept, and therefore we cannot accept the truth without stunningly good evidence and/or arguments. Personally, I still do not accept any truth (yet) and might never do because my understanding of the world is limited to a lot of things. For instance my life span.
|
™ Version 4.2