Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,715 Year: 18,751/19,786 Month: 1,171/1,705 Week: 423/518 Day: 41/58 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 16 of 41 (430465)
10-25-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bertvan
10-25-2007 3:17 PM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
There is an abolute lack of evidence that:

That living organisms participate in the design their own evolution
during growth and development....

Therefore any belief that the above is true can only be described by belief in the absence of evidence. That is called:

faith
-noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

That is what makes ID a theology. The only way to support it is though faith due to the entire lack of and lack of intent to produce evidence by its advocates.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 3:17 PM bertvan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 4:55 PM Jazzns has responded

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 17 of 41 (430472)
10-25-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jazzns
10-25-2007 3:37 PM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
What is the evidence that ID permits, but does not require a belief in theism? Me. I an a religious agnostic who does not believe in a personal god. Yet I do not believe evolution is the result of "natural selection" acting upon a series of genetic accidents. You may not acknowledge evidence that rational intent exists as an aspect of nature, but other people observe organisms and internal organs responding intelligently and purposefully and regard those observations as evidence of the reality of purposeful intent. Usually I'm content to leave science to the scientists. However so long as materialists denounce anyone questioning materialism as "an ignorant creationist", I'll feel obligated to protest.


Qeustions about Materialism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jazzns, posted 10-25-2007 3:37 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 5:37 PM bertvan has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 10-25-2007 5:42 PM bertvan has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 2:22 PM bertvan has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 41 (430475)
10-25-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bertvan
10-25-2007 4:55 PM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
Yet I do not believe evolution is the result of "natural selection" acting upon a series of genetic accidents. You may not acknowledge evidence that rational intent exists as an aspect of nature, but other people observe organisms and internal organs responding intelligently and purposefully and regard those observations as evidence of the reality of purposeful intent.

So who was the designer, then? Human beings, the only known designers, were not around to do it, yet.

Since there wasn't a designer, we know that the appearance of design is the result of evolution by natural selection, not by actual design. And we know that natural selection and random mutation can create the appearance of design.

That some people see "design" when they look at the natural world is not an indication that anything has been designed. It certainly becomes incumbent on scientists to explain why things look designed in some cases, but natural selection and random mutation does that in the case of every organism that has evolved.

There's no evidence of rational intent to acknowledge, Bert.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 4:55 PM bertvan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 8:21 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 41 (430478)
10-25-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bertvan
10-25-2007 4:55 PM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
What is the evidence that ID permits, but does not require a belief in theism?

I am not aware of ANY evidence for ID whatsoever after many years looking for it and asking its advocates. That is sort of the point right.

Me. I an a religious agnostic who does not believe in a personal god. Yet I do not believe evolution is the result of "natural selection" acting upon a series of genetic accidents.

Then this is simply a further indication that what you believe is not founded upon the evidence. Quite simply, you are completely and utterly destroying your original claim that ID is not a religion.

You may not acknowledge evidence that rational intent exists as an aspect of nature, but other people observe organisms and internal organs responding intelligently and purposefully and regard those observations as evidence of the reality of purposeful intent.

It is not that I don't acknowledge it, the issue is that such evidence simply does not exist. If it did exist, I would acknowledge it.

For starters, define purposeful intent, define a metric on how we can measure purposeful intent, and explain how to apply that metric to an internal organ so that all of us skeptics can see very clearly the evidence that organs express purposeful intent as compared to some other unintelligent object such as a rock.

Doing so will put you lightyears ahead of any so-called ID advocate.

Usually I'm content to leave science to the scientists. However so long as materialists denounce anyone questioning materialism as "an ignorant creationist", I'll feel obligated to protest.

I have not called you an "ignorant creationist". You simply are advocating a faith-based belief by definition. When you communicate something that you call a "belief" that is not based on the evidence or is contray to the evidence then that is called "faith". Plain and simple. This simple fact is not controversial in my mind. It is simply a description of what you have communicated to the readers of this forum thus far.

I do not denouce people who question materialism. I would not mind taking part in a discussion about materialism. Unfortunatly for you that is not what you are bringing to the table. So far the only thing you have done is reject known reality as religion and proclaim the superiority of un-evidenced ideas which have a well documented geneology to fundamentalist Christian ideology. What they heck does any of what you have said so far have to do with materialism or the acceptance/rejection thereof?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 4:55 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 20 of 41 (430495)
10-25-2007 7:06 PM


free will can't be measured
Jazzns
quote:
For starters, define purposeful intent, define a metric on how we can measure purposeful intent, and explain how to apply that metric to an internal organ so that all of us skeptics can see very clearly the evidence that organs express purposeful intent as compared to some other unintelligent object such as a rock.

Most people know what purposeful intent means, and the fact that you seem to know it doesn’t apply to a rock causes me to suspect you also have some comprehension of its meaning. I presume you are going to argue that an inability to define intelligence to your satisfaction would constitute evidence it plays no role in living systems. I define intelligence as the ability to make fallible, subjective judgments. No intelligence would be required to make automatic, deterministic, thermostat-type decisions. Subjective judgments include the option of being wrong, but they also offer the opportunity to respond creatively in emergencies. Intelligent decisions can only be measured or predicted statistically. They are immaterial and don’t take up space. I’m confident of my own freewill, but I also know it can’t be measured. The judgment as to whether living organisms resemble mindless, mechanical collections of matter or whether they respond and interact intelligently is such a subjective judgment. There will always be materialists who see living organisms as complex, mechanical zombies that can only change accidentally (accidents, which are then supposedly turned into coherent systems by “natural selection). If the belief that life is intelligently organized is a religious belief, so is the belief that no intelligence is involved in living processes. Neither can be proved to everyone’s satisfaction.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/


http:30145.myauthorsite.com/

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jazzns, posted 10-25-2007 8:45 PM bertvan has not yet responded
 Message 22 by sidelined, posted 10-25-2007 8:52 PM bertvan has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 21 of 41 (430519)
10-25-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by bertvan
10-25-2007 7:06 PM


Re: free will can't be measured
Subjective judgments include the option of being wrong, but they also offer the opportunity to respond creatively in emergencies. Intelligent decisions can only be measured or predicted statistically. They are immaterial and don’t take up space. I’m confident of my own freewill, but I also know it can’t be measured. The judgment as to whether living organisms resemble mindless, mechanical collections of matter or whether they respond and interact intelligently is such a subjective judgment.

So you are basically admitting that the conclusions of intelligent design are completely and utterly subjectively derived. How is that supposed to be compelling?

You claim to be non-religious but yet are also dismissing objectivity and evidenced based reasoning. That only puts you in a no-mans land of beliefs where literally you have less than no credibility or persuasion.

The religious types, at the very least, can claim divine revelation. You don't even have such a meager and fragile foundation.

If the belief that life is intelligently organized is a religious belief, so is the belief that no intelligence is involved in living processes. Neither can be proved to everyone’s satisfaction.

Actually, yes it can. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Therefore the choice to accept it as the proper model to explain the origin of the diversity of life is most certainly NOT subjective. In fact it is literally the opposite.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 7:06 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 41 (430520)
10-25-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by bertvan
10-25-2007 7:06 PM


Re: free will can't be measured
bertvan

I’m confident of my own freewill, but I also know it can’t be measured.

I take it that you are not aware of the experiments performed by Benjamin Libet in the 1970's?

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 7:06 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 23 of 41 (430636)
10-26-2007 1:35 PM


all conclusions are subjective
quote:
So you are basically admitting that the conclusions of intelligent design are completely and utterly subjectively derived. How is that supposed to be compelling?

Bertvan: All conclusions are subjectively derived. That is the definition of a conclusion. Some conclusions compel more people than other conclusions do, but I am skeptical of the existence absolute truths. The conclusion that “natural selection” might somehow turn a series of genetic accidents into rationally interacting biological systems apparently doesn’t compel a number of people. Perhaps RM&NS skeptics have not yet achieved a majority, and perhaps you believe intimidation and ridicule can prevent more RM&NS skepticism. Personally I believe such tactics are counterproductive. I certainly find it difficult to ignore strident intolerance by proponents of an idea when trying to form my own conclusions. As someone who does not believe in a personal god, my confidence is diminished in anyone who claims all doubts about RM&NS are religiously motivated. Belief in the reality of purposeful creativity and free will as aspects of living systems does not require belief in a personal god.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/


http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 3:34 PM bertvan has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 41 (430647)
10-26-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bertvan
10-25-2007 4:55 PM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
You may not acknowledge evidence that rational intent exists as an aspect of nature, but other people observe organisms and internal organs responding intelligently and purposefully and regard those observations as evidence of the reality of purposeful intent.

Okay, I won't even ask you to define "rational intent". However, for this assertion to be even worth considering, I would ask you to provide one single actual example from nature where we see "organisms and organs responding intelligently and purposefully". If you can, then we can consider your example in context. At the moment, all we have is your assertion that such things take place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bertvan, posted 10-25-2007 4:55 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 41 (430663)
10-26-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by bertvan
10-26-2007 1:35 PM


Re: all conclusions are subjective
That is the definition of a conclusion. Some conclusions compel more people than other conclusions do, but I am skeptical of the existence absolute truths.

Here's the fault in your reasoning - tentativity and the contingency of human knowledge aren't excuses to jump to conclusions. In fact they're very good reasons to refuse to jump to conclusions except on the basis of good evidence.

You, on the other hand, on the basis of no evidence, jump to the conclusion that some intelligent designer is responsible for the diversity of life.

Belief in the reality of purposeful creativity and free will as aspects of living systems does not require belief in a personal god.

To be a reasonable belief, it has to be supported by evidence. What is your evidence? Ben Stein's fraudulent movie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bertvan, posted 10-26-2007 1:35 PM bertvan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bertvan, posted 10-27-2007 11:22 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 26 of 41 (430769)
10-27-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
10-26-2007 3:34 PM


Re: all conclusions are subjective
Quetzal
quote:
Okay, I won't even ask you to define "rational intent". However, for this assertion to be even worth considering, I would ask you to provide one single actual example from nature where we see "organisms and organs responding intelligently and purposefully". If you can, then we can consider your example in context. At the moment, all we have is your assertion that such things take place.

While science knows that an organism develops from a single fertilized cell into a complex organism, science cannot duplicate the process. The details are mostly a mystery. “The genome does it” is no more explanatory than “God does it”. I see the genome as a record of past adaptations, not the origin of new ones. All individual living systems have some limited ability to respond and adapt, intelligently and purposefully, during growth and development. Organs develop through use and atrophy through disuse. Biological systems employ some creativity to fight disease and heal wounds. Some are even able to grow new body parts. Individual living organisms achieve limited adjustment to temperature changes and changes in altitude. They learn to utilize novel food sources.

Some limited ability to purposefully override instincts and develop new behaviors is a characteristic of living systems. Adaptations are inherited, epigenetically, as they develop and only become incorporated into the genome if persistent over generations. In other words, Biological systems gradually redesign themselves as they encounter new environments, utilizing a natural ability to make limited choices, an ability that has not been detected in non-living systems. “Natural selection” plays no creative role in the process.

Now, I am indifferent as to whether or not you find evidence for this view compelling. I would not try to exclude you from science because you find genetic accidents and “natural selection” believable. People favoring either concept can be perfectly competent biologists. Tolerance for differing views is all Ben Stein is trying to promote.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/


http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 3:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 10-27-2007 5:34 PM bertvan has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2007 12:20 PM bertvan has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18873
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 27 of 41 (430806)
10-27-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bertvan
10-27-2007 11:22 AM


Re: all conclusions are subjective
bertvan writes:

While science knows that an organism develops from a single fertilized cell into a complex organism, science cannot duplicate the process. The details are mostly a mystery.

A mystery? Meaning we can't figure out the physical laws governing the phenomenon? Or meaning there are some details of the phenomenon we haven't figured out? Whichever the case, sure, there are plenty of scientific mysteries. Since we're never going to know everything, there will always be things we do not know, and if you want to call them mysteries then be my guest.

But it also sounds as if you're saying that any phenomenon science cannot duplicate is a mystery, and that's clearly not true. There are many natural phenomena we can't duplicate that are nonetheless well understood, controlled fusion being one.

“The genome does it” is no more explanatory than “God does it”.

But biology doesn't stop at the explanation that "the genome does it." Open any biology textbook and you can read about messenger RNA and amino acid encoding and protein construction and so forth. We understand a good deal of the process to a very fine level of detail, and we learn more all the time, as reflected in the wealth of new technical literature published every month.

All individual living systems have some limited ability to respond and adapt, intelligently and purposefully, during growth and development.

When science looks at growth and development it only finds extremely complex chemistry. Where, specifically, do you see intelligence and purpose during this process? Typically when an intelligence, such as ourselves, carries out some action, anyone watching can see us do it. If there is some intelligence acting during cell division or growth it isn't visible under any microscope.

Biological systems employ some creativity to fight disease and heal wounds.

Creativity? When someone gets a cut or fights off a cold, their body does it the exact same way the bodies of their long-ago ancestors did it. There's no evidence that their body is creatively exploring new solutions to either cuts or colds.

Some are even able to grow new body parts.

You mean like lizards growing a new tail? That's replacing a body part, not growing a new body part that didn't exist before.

You're describing normal everyday things as if they were evidence of an intelligence and purpose, but when we examine it it just looks like complex chemistry, and at a lower level of detail it's just physics. If there's some intelligence at work then it's indistinguishable from natural physical processes.

Adaptations are inherited, epigenetically, as they develop and only become incorporated into the genome if persistent over generations.

This is incorrect. Its difficult to tell precisely what your epigenetic claim is, but adaptations acquired during an organism's lifetime never become incorporated into the genome and passed on to offspring.

other words, Biological systems gradually redesign themselves as they encounter new environments, utilizing a natural ability to make limited choices, an ability that has not been detected in non-living systems.

It hasn't been detected in living systems, either. You seem to be making some kind of Lamarckian claim, something which was known to be wrong long ago, even before Darwin.

“Natural selection” plays no creative role in the process.

Unlike your own claims, there are mountains of evidence for the role natural selection plays in evolution.

Now, I am indifferent as to whether or not you find evidence for this view compelling.

I not only don't find the evidence compelling, I don't even see any evidence.

I would not try to exclude you from science because you find genetic accidents and “natural selection” believable. People favoring either concept can be perfectly competent biologists. Tolerance for differing views is all Ben Stein is trying to promote.

Sounds like Jesus preaching for science: all you need is love and tolerance and you can be a "perfectly competent biologist." But science is actually a journey of discovery of the nature of the real world through a process of experiment, observation, analysis, replication and theorizing. If you have evidence from the real world for your views then you can go ahead and make the scientific case, but without evidence, which seems to be your situation, scientifically you're lost.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bertvan, posted 10-27-2007 11:22 AM bertvan has not yet responded

    
Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 3526 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 28 of 41 (430909)
10-28-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
10-25-2007 5:37 PM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
So who was the designer, then? Human beings, the only known designers, were not around to do it, yet. Since there wasn't a designer, we know that the appearance of design is the result of evolution by natural selection, not by actual design.

Oh sure, that's the way to do science. Start out with a preconceived belief system, declare it to be fact, and therefore evolution has to be true.

I read the rules to this forum before joining, and one of them was lying wasn't allowed. I'm seeing a hell of a lot of it though. Fact is there is a higher intelligence and there is also a lot of life out in the universe. I'd dump a bunch of proof onto you, but I know the admins like things to stay on topic. I'll start a topic about that later on.

And there are many things that can't be explained by evolution, that's why there's still so much controversy. But if you think everything can, I'll keep track of your name and in the future I'll run things by you to get the answers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 5:37 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2007 8:57 AM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2007 9:30 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

  
Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 3526 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 29 of 41 (430911)
10-28-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
06-09-2007 3:42 PM


Re: The Lessons of History
Irreducible Complexity has been refuted, falsified. The fact that Behe (and others) still promote this dead rat shows their willingness to lie rather than to face the truth.

I sure gets annoying hearing people make such bold declarations that don't seem to be true. There appear to be many systems consisting of a number of interacting parts in living things that can't be reduced, or perhaps, can't be explained in a slow step by step evolutionary process, unless you believe that lifeforms actually had lots of partly formed useless systems for long periods of time. But something that isn't working serves no benefit nor would be expected to be passed on by natural selection.

I've seen some supposed explanations given by some anti-Behe people and have yet to see complete step by step explanations for many things, or a realistic ones for others. A couple of dumbasses on Youtube put up contradictory little cartoons for reducing a mousetrap, one turing the mousetrap into a completely different object with each reduction and the other reshaping all the other parts of it with every reduction.

However, as I've said to another person here, I'll keep track of your name, and when I post some problems that seem irreducibly complex, I'll have you to explain the problem away.

Edited by Elhardt, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 3:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2007 9:17 AM Elhardt has not yet responded
 Message 37 by tsig, posted 10-28-2007 1:11 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 30 of 41 (430913)
10-28-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 8:21 AM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
I read the rules to this forum before joining, and one of them was lying wasn't allowed. I'm seeing a hell of a lot of it though.

Then you also know that on science threads you need to substantiate claims when challenged to do so: please document all these lies your are asserting and show that (1) they are false and (2) that the intent is to deceive. For instance this:

Start out with a preconceived belief system, declare it to be fact, and therefore evolution has to be true.

Is a false statement, there is no "preconceived belief system" in science (as there is in faith) nor is there any declaration of fact (other than that evidence is factual), however I cannot show that your intent was to deceive others rather that just show an ignorance of how science works.

And there are many things that can't be explained by evolution, that's why there's still so much controversy.

Meanwhile there is nothing that is explained by ID -- which is the context of this thread -- or creationism (other than a desire to believe in fantasy). Controversy? What controversy? The only real controversy I am aware of is within those people who try to believe in a false reality (fantasy) in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The fact that not all things are explained by evolution is not a controversy. Nor does it suddenly mean that evolution does not occur.

Fact is there is a higher intelligence and there is also a lot of life out in the universe. I'd dump a bunch of proof onto you, but I know the admins like things to stay on topic. I'll start a topic about that later on.

Please do start a topic. Soon, before you overextend yourself on numerous threads where you cannot support your assertions and people start taking you to task for your several logical errors and the level of ignorance (lack of knowledge) your posts display.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

In particular you are specifically challenged to "dump a bunch of proof" that "there is a higher intelligence and there is also a lot of life out in the universe" ...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 8:21 AM Elhardt has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019