New Discovery: Did Apes Descend from Us? - Page 2
Old 10-06-2009, 08:31 AM   #21 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmats7 View Post
The way this is put together... you're saying the first cause is as equally likely as something that has always existed. Which is 50/50.

So it's equally likely that matter initially appeared from nothing, as it is that God appeared from nothing right? I mean neither of them make sense using the laws of science... therefore we can't use science in things that are too complicated for the mind of men. Because men use science to explain a world that we see/understand.
no, it is equally likely that matter appeared from something else, not from nothing. this is precisely the point i was making. the point that "things always have and always will exist" implies that there was no point at which things came from nothing. time is a human invention.

any argument from first cause immediately becomes a reductio ad infinitum. what caused the causer, etc, to infinity. the idea that everything has always existed in some form and just changes by its own physics seems to be much more plausible because it doesn't immediately become a rhetorical tautology. but i'll give it 50-50 because, at this stage of our understanding, none of it can be proved conclusively.

but even a young school child of today knows a great deal more about the cosmos than anyone writing at the time of the bible, or any other religious text. and so i'll take the science that exists today, and that can posit a theory of an expanding universe based on testable evidence that is open to criticism over an enforced superstition that bases it's guesswork on an insistence of truth without any need for evidence.

in the words of laplace to napoleon: "je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese."
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:08 AM   #22 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

I agree with you that time is a human concept. Thus, we'll never fully comprehend the beginning .. because the beginning marks some period of time.

"Things have and always will exist", matter/energy can only change forms but not be created or destroyed (kinda). But where did the speed come from in the big bang? Considering human logic, we can't comprehend that this stuff happened on it's own.

And when we consider things outside time (ie.. time as a 4th dimension)... it will eventually lead us into string theory (I think they are up to 17 or 18 dimensions now). You see scientists might believe strings or the great singularity were just always there with no real proof. Religious people believe in God with no scientific proof either.

As for the bible... the main message, or atleast the end of it atleast is about being good to people. Give food to poor people, be kind etc. etc.

But again science has no way to prove anything from the beginning; so it's equally likely that there is a God. I don't know why "rationalists" are so disgusted by the thought of the religious belief in God.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:25 AM   #23 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

at least science can be argued/debated and proofs can be offered. skepticism is welcomed. the same cannot be said about religion.

Quote:
As for the bible... the main message, or atleast the end of it atleast is about being good to people. Give food to poor people, be kind etc. etc.
religion does not have a monopoly on being a good person. in fact, for every good message in the bible i could give you another one that is terrible, particularly in the old testament, but also throughout the new testament. i would be happy to quote indictments about the murder of women or the ownership of slaves if we want to get into all of that.

to be a good person works just as well - perhaps better - without god as it does with. the goodness in the bible is it's humanism, not it's religiosity. again, "je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese."
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:56 AM   #24 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

LOL this has become more of a religious debate, but a good one nonetheless.

Well the whole question of morality and being good to another person lies solely with a concept of a God and right from wrong. Who decides what's right and wrong?

However, you might be one of the people that believes being kind etc. to another human is bioligically advantageous for people in the long wrong. ie... instead of 3 cavemen fighting for food, they shared equally so that all would get some.. but not as much.

I guess you could say these traits or characteristics have been passed on because of the evolution of mankind. But I'd argue that morality in general for the world, has more to do with moral accountability than it does with evolution.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:13 AM   #25 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Well the whole question of morality and being good to another person lies solely with a concept of a God and right from wrong.
wha??? there are all sorts of good people that aren't religious at all, and even more that are religious but are evil as can be.

i am assuming you are talking about a christian god? personally i don't see how christians have any more truth to their god than do any of the major monotheisms, let alone the hindus or ancient greeks for that matter. in a world of competing god myths, which one holds the monopoly on right and wrong?

the answer is none. none of the hold the monopoly. absolute right and wrong is a myth, but we try to realize it through humanism. all of those ideas like the golden rule, opposition to murder, torture, rape, incest, slavery, etc, these are independent of god. in fact, the bible sanctions several of them, given the right circumstances. it is perfectly fine to murder children women who have slept with men, according to the word of god ('numbers' in the old testament). is that morally right? not to me. not to most people. but it is humanism, not religion, that guides that moral choice. i changed my avy to bertrand russell today for precisely this reason.

it is absurd to me that anyone would put morality in the hands of a belief structure that sanctions/sanctioned countless evils.

your point about accountability is an interesting one. i would say that christian morality was all about accountability, in that societies needed an enforcement mechanism for good behaviour. but those days are long passed. we are far more educated now, and have a much stronger social network and political framework. morality no longer needs to be enforced through religious indoctrination. especially when it is so plainly obvious that those religions have sanctioned countless heinous acts.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:54 AM   #26 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,248
Representing:
Default

What I would like to pose for a wuestion is why do so many people believe it is either one or the other.

Is it not possible or out of the realm of possiblilty that both science and religion co-exist to the extent that there is a God and he created the heavens and the earth and all earthly inhabitants by means of an evolutionary process?

It says in the bible that one day in heaven is equal to thousands of years on earth and it also says that gad created earth and heaven in 6 days, that could easily mean at a minimum 6000 years. So it is possible that the concept of millions didnt exist when these scriptures were written and that a thousand was as large a number that was understood at the time. It could have easily been 6 million years instead of 6000 which would have left plenty of time for evolution to run its course.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 12:55 PM   #27 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

I meant to post a lot sooner, but now so much has been covered that I don't really have the energy to go through it all. I'll just re-assert that science and religion are basically opposing poles of intellect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
What I would like to pose for a wuestion is why do so many people believe it is either one or the other.

Is it not possible or out of the realm of possiblilty that both science and religion co-exist to the extent that there is a God and he created the heavens and the earth and all earthly inhabitants by means of an evolutionary process?

It says in the bible that one day in heaven is equal to thousands of years on earth and it also says that gad created earth and heaven in 6 days, that could easily mean at a minimum 6000 years. So it is possible that the concept of millions didnt exist when these scriptures were written and that a thousand was as large a number that was understood at the time. It could have easily been 6 million years instead of 6000 which would have left plenty of time for evolution to run its course.
Well, the Bible draws its authority in the first place by asserting that it is the word of god. Once we begin to take a liberal interpretation, we are merely trying to make the religion fit with the science that we know to be the case, and must be left asking ourself on what grounds is the religion making any specific claims.

I think religion and the practice of science are compatible if the religious claims do not entail anything empirical. If we limit god to a sort of deism, where he is transcendent and supernatural without interference in the natural world, then he is certainly out of the realm of science. Naturally, that's a pretty shallow god for most people, so they like the religious claims that are disparate from what we can be reasonably certain is reality. That's where claims like "There was a global flood" jut up against science.

Also, 6 million years is nowhere near enough time for the evolution that has occurred so far.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 01:02 PM   #28 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

A word on relative vs. absolute morality:

Aren't we already there? The claim is: if there is no God, everyone's morals will be relative. Don't you see that's how it already is? Religions role in morality is an interesting one: there is a tendency for convergence on a few key principles which can be found in secular philosophy, such as the sort of golden rule humanism espoused by Confucius 500 years before Christ, and outside of that it is kind of "Make it up as you go." Even within sects, there is no agreement on which of the principles outlined in holy texts are the most worth following. Clearly this assertion that god establishes morality has gotten us no further in achieving this absolute morality people so clamour for.

Further, I think the closest we can get to absolute morality is by an understanding of what the here, the now, the present requires. We have evolved certain moral intuitions that are natural for a social species, and have spent centuries establishing moral philosophy, ethics, and social contract theory for that very reason. Certainly there are still moral dilemmas that are not completely clear (such as the famed thought experiment involving an oncoming train), but they are no more clear for religions than they are for the secular.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 01:37 PM   #29 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
I meant to post a lot sooner, but now so much has been covered that I don't really have the energy to go through it all. I'll just re-assert that science and religion are basically opposing poles of intellect.



Well, the Bible draws its authority in the first place by asserting that it is the word of god. Once we begin to take a liberal interpretation, we are merely trying to make the religion fit with the science that we know to be the case, and must be left asking ourself on what grounds is the religion making any specific claims.

I think religion and the practice of science are compatible if the religious claims do not entail anything empirical. If we limit god to a sort of deism, where he is transcendent and supernatural without interference in the natural world, then he is certainly out of the realm of science. Naturally, that's a pretty shallow god for most people, so they like the religious claims that are disparate from what we can be reasonably certain is reality. That's where claims like "There was a global flood" jut up against science.

Also, 6 million years is nowhere near enough time for the evolution that has occurred so far.
totally agree. trying to make religion fit the facts is backwards reasoning and just an attempt to square the circle. also, if god is perfect, why are there so many collossal fuck ups in his design? and if god created the heavens and earth, and the bible is god's word, why is there no mention of anything that can't be seen by human eyes? and why, if god gave man dominion over all animals and beasts, are we completely at the mercy of germs? so many questions unanswered by religion that are completely explainable by science.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 01:45 PM   #30 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,248
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
totally agree. trying to make religion fit the facts is backwards reasoning and just an attempt to square the circle. also, if god is perfect, why are there so many collossal fuck ups in his design? and if god created the heavens and earth, and the bible is god's word, why is there no mention of anything that can't be seen by human eyes? and why, if god gave man dominion over all animals and beasts, are we completely at the mercy of germs? so many questions unanswered by religion that are completely explainable by science.
Fuck ups?, could be contributed to mans own mistakes or to trials and tribulations out here for man to overcome and grow from.

And the bible was written a long time ago by people who really had no understanding of things that we now have understanding of. And Paul did write about visions of helicopters in the book of Revaltaions.

And about being at the mercy of germs, science has yet to prove that they arent a biproduct of man himself as punishment or whatever.

And on the dominion thing, that is being taken to literaly, dominion in the sense of the bible is the fact that we receive the benefit of being able to think for ourself, formulate our own decisions and have the option to be able to go to heaven. After all Humans were made "in his own image".

And as far as not having proof by having answers through religion would that not defeat the purpose of faith to begin with?
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 01:56 PM   #31 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
Fuck ups?, could be contributed to mans own mistakes or to trials and tribulations out here for man to overcome and grow from.

And the bible was written a long time ago by people who really had no understanding of things that we now have understanding of. And Paul did write about visions of helicopters in the book of Revaltaions.

And about being at the mercy of germs, science has yet to prove that they arent a biproduct of man himself as punishment or whatever.

And on the dominion thing, that is being taken to literaly, dominion in the sense of the bible is the fact that we receive the benefit of being able to think for ourself, formulate our own decisions and have the option to be able to go to heaven. After all Humans were made "in his own image".

And as far as not having proof by having answers through religion would that not defeat the purpose of faith to begin with?
absolutely fuck ups. diseases, birth defects, mental health, non-viable species. etc. if it is a designed system, it is so incredibly far from perfect that the only way to justify that perfection is to say all the fuck ups are designed as tests. i hardly find this convincing.

if the bible is god's word, why the need to come up with so many justifications as to why it is wrong? if it's god's word, and god is perfect, what does it matter when it was written?

this faith idea is truly odd to me. we should believe it, even though it doesn't make sense, precisely because we should believe it and it doesn't make sense. lovely little tautology there.

no thanks. i'd rather listen to a worldview that allows me to question it and offers some proof that it might indeed be true.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:03 PM   #32 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,248
Representing:
Default

Same could be said of the perfection that evolution has suposedly brought on.

I find it had to beleive that by absolute happenchance some opposing chemicals, subatomic particles collided and led us to the point were we are today.


And why havent humans evolved at all in the past multiple millenia?


And if evolution is basically survival of the strongest, how the fuck did cows evolve to their present state. I cannot see a cow surviving to adulthood so to speak in the wilderness.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:06 PM   #33 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

and to the helicopter comment - what percentage of biblical prophecies have actually come true? if i were to throw out dozens of expectations, and one came true, would you call me a prophet? this is just another major logical fallacy used to square the circle.

and if humans were made in god's image, what about the deaf, blind, disabled, etc? what about the mad, the ignorant?

and, even if i am wrong about all of this, i ask again, what is it about your god (i assume that you are christian) that has a monopoly over these things? why is it that you are certain that hindus are wrong? or muslims? or other christian sects? or jews? or ancient greeks? or egyptians? none of these faiths has any more credibility than another, no more truths, no more access to priviledged information.

it seems to me so patently obvious that religion was invented by people, that god was invented in man's image, and that the whole enterprise looks backwards in history to try to give meaning to the unanswerable at a time when humanity was vastly more ignorant than it is now. why do we hang on to this other than to hedge our bets in case there really is a hell and it is a place we don't want to end up? and if faith is just a matter of safe betting, it's not really faith, nor belief, is it?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:10 PM   #34 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
Same could be said of the perfection that evolution has suposedly brought on.

I find it had to beleive that by absolute happenchance some opposing chemicals, subatomic particles collided and led us to the point were we are today.


And why havent humans evolved at all in the past multiple millenia?


And if evolution is basically survival of the strongest, how the fuck did cows evolve to their present state. I cannot see a cow surviving to adulthood so to speak in the wilderness.
no one claims that evol;ution is teleogical, that it has or will reach perfection. at least i'm not claiming that. it is pure happenstance, thus all teh colossal mistakes.

humans evolved when they evolved precisely because of that happenstance. to say that because they didn't come earelier we have proof of god is absurd.

cows exist because humans cultivate them as a part of agriculture. that's an easy one. they took a very different form in the past and we have bred them to be livestock. that pretty much gives some solid proof to evolution and genetics right there.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:15 PM   #35 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,248
Representing:
Default

What is beleived to be the evolutionary ancestor to cows is known as the Aurochs
Written about here by Julios Ceasar

Quote:
Julius Caesar wrote of them in an account of the Black Forest in Germany: "They are but a little less than elephants in size, and are of the species, color, and form of a bull. Their strength is very great, and also their speed. They spare neither man nor beast that they see. They cannot be brought to endure the sight of men, nor be tamed, even when taken young. The people, who take them in pitfalls, assiduously destroy them; and young men harden themselves in this labor, and exercise themselves in this kind of chase; and those who have killed a great number - the horns being publicly exhibited in evidence of the fact - obtain great honor." Due to such intense hunting, as well as conversion of land to agriculture, the aurochs herds of Europe dwindled till by the Middle Ages there were few left. Although efforts were made to preserve the species, the last known surviving wild aurochs, in the Jaktorow Forest in Poland, died in 1627.
Source
I bolded the interesting parts
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:18 PM   #36 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

i have no idea what you are trying to prove by that, other than ignoring all the other points i made.

a possible pre-cursor to cows became extinct because men hunted and killed them. so what?

from your cource:

Quote:
Caesar's remarks notwithstanding, some varieties of the aurochs were capable of domestication, which is thought to have occurred 8,000-10,000 years ago. Two distinct kinds of domestic cattle have long been recognized: European cattle, known as Bos taurus, and humped Indian cattle (or zebu), known as Bos indicus. Recent genetic studies suggest that these two groups represent independent domestication events, involving different subspecies of aurochs, in Europe/western Asia and in south Asia

Last edited by 'trane; 10-06-2009 at 02:21 PM.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:27 PM   #37 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,248
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i have no idea what you are trying to prove by that, other than ignoring all the other points i made.

a possible pre-cursor to cows became extinct because men hunted and killed them. so what?

from your cource:


I do beleive in evolution, mainly because I believe in scientific equations and numbers but I just believe that it started for a reason, not by fluke.

I like to believe that there is more importance placed on humankind that just that of being a byproduct to a random series of events.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:36 PM   #38 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

why did it have to start with anything? perhaps it's just always been, and that is the point i made right at the beginning of this debate. why do we always have to have a first cause?

believe what you want, just know that you could substuitute any invented word for god and it would mean exactly the same thing. call god santa claus and jesus the easter bunny, it makes no difference. it's all a smoke screen. if it makes you feel better to believe, then believe away. all i ask is that when you believe, understand that your claim has no more weight than any other theism, and that all of them base their faith on tautologies and the denial of reason.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:37 PM   #39 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
Fuck ups?, could be contributed to mans own mistakes or to trials and tribulations out here for man to overcome and grow from.

And the bible was written a long time ago by people who really had no understanding of things that we now have understanding of. And Paul did write about visions of helicopters in the book of Revaltaions.
Can you quote the passage, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
And about being at the mercy of germs, science has yet to prove that they arent a biproduct of man himself as punishment or whatever.
I guess this is a question of what your null hypothesis is. When someone makes a claim, I feel the burden of proof is on them to provide positive evidence demonstrating that it is true, rather than requiring evidence proving that it is false. This is a method that helps us weed out a whole host of claims that are, on their face, false, but cannot be proven as such. If I were to claim that Santa exists, you would ask me what proof I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
And on the dominion thing, that is being taken to literaly, dominion in the sense of the bible is the fact that we receive the benefit of being able to think for ourself, formulate our own decisions and have the option to be able to go to heaven. After all Humans were made "in his own image".
So we have the benefit of being able to think for ourselves, but are sentenced to hell for all eternity if we refuse to limit such inquiry to non-religious claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
And as far as not having proof by having answers through religion would that not defeat the purpose of faith to begin with?
The biggest problem I have with faith is as follows:

1) Why do we require faith?
2) In what do we require faith?
3) How do we know that 1) and 2) are true?

You assert that we are supposed to have faith in god; I ask why shouldn't we have faith in everything? Surely your response will be something along the lines of Pascal's Wager (ie, "there is a reward for belief") but that is a presumption of doctrine whose authority I reject. I think an omnipotent, ominbenevolent god would be quite alright with us using our "god-given" faculties of reason to question baseless claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
Same could be said of the perfection that evolution has suposedly brought on.
No person who understands evolution would ever claim perfection. In fact, the lack of perfection is the best evidence that evolution, rather than perfect teleological design, has occurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
I find it had to beleive that by absolute happenchance some opposing chemicals, subatomic particles collided and led us to the point were we are today.
Well, over billions of years, low-probability events are almost bound to happen, as long as they are possible. Once the initial synthesis of self-replicating proteins occurred, only the mutations became chance, not the selections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
And why havent humans evolved at all in the past multiple millenia?
For starters, significant evolution takes millions of years. However, even if we reduce our scope to a sort of micro-evolution, you can see that there have been significant changes in humans in the last 2000 years. Have you seen the size of beds from the antiquities?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
And if evolution is basically survival of the strongest, how the fuck did cows evolve to their present state. I cannot see a cow surviving to adulthood so to speak in the wilderness.
That is an assertion, not a demonstration of fact. May I also say that it is slightly misleading to use the phrase "survival of the strongest"; such terms are not used in evolutionary biology. There are actually at least two prongs of survival here: those who are able to reproduce the most, and those who are the best-adapated for their environment. Frankly, I can imagine many, many scenarios in which a cow would satisfy either of those categories.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 03:19 PM   #40 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

It's simple really as Trane said. Its likely something that transcends time etc. and that has always been there. Some people think those are strings, some people think it is God. If you believe in the big bang though, you assume the first mass was moving when it started? No one needed to "CAUSE" this velocity, but there were 2 particles that transcend time that were already moving? That seems pretty unlikely as well.

As far as the bible goes, my personal belief is that it wasn't made to be taken all literally. I mean it's highly unlikely (I say that because I dont think anything is impossible) for example that Noah was able to make an ark so big that it fit all animals? like what the heck? lol.

In the same way... most Christians interpret "made in the image of God" not a literal interpretation. Ie... God doesn't look like us with a beard and stuff lol. The image of God is supposed to be our soul... ie.. after we die we live on forever because God lives forever. That is the interpretation.

Anyhoo... the sum of all this is... no one knows because time transcends us. And so does an expanding universe into nothing.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discovery Channel: Real Life Superheroes lang Entertainment Lounge 2 10-04-2008 09:23 AM
I'm going to be on a new show on Discovery Network Jay News & Announcements 6 09-09-2008 10:11 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24