PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Science vs Religion

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems like a lot of people have a problem with science, and feel that science threatens their religious beliefs.  

The fact really is that some beliefs cannot measure up to the reality of the real world.  A literal interpetation of the Bible, for an example, is often at odds with what has been discovered in the past 600 years.  

The first blow came when it was discovered that the Earth is not the center of the universe.  Our solar system is one in a unimaginable countless number of star systems.  A tiny speck in a truly vast universe.

And then 150 years ago ideas about evolution come along and dispels the idea that there is anything particularly special about human beings.  Not that we aren't unique on the planet.  We are.  But we just aren't made in God's image.

Some people have trouble with this.  Some people don't.  Some people adapt to change and to new discoveries that we make aobut the world around us.  Other people cling to old, outdated ideas.

For some, science and religion don't clash.  They are two different ways of trying to understand our place in the universe.  But for others, science, and particularly the idea of evolution, is seen as threatening.  But evolution isn't going away, because it is a real fact of life - pure and simple.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:22 PM on June 11, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science and religion are exactly the same thing: shades of grey.

Evolution is not going away, it isn't going anywhere, because it is not here; Evolution is not a real fact of life because there is no such thing. To say that 'real fact of life' is pure and simple is a contradiction in terms. Just like saying there is a 'god' or 'supreme being', any claim to name or know is false (a fundamental contradiction of present sense).

Earth is not the center of the universe because there is no known 'center' to anything. Even the circle you draw on paper with a compass has no known center. There is an absurd concept called the infinite and infinitesimal, that is used to fill in the blank of where the center is supposed to be (as well as all other made-up attributes of reality), but whatever terms one uses to explain or rationalize the position of center to the circle, there is nothing other then the sense of center expressed in present, and this sense cannot be rationalized because it is universal. So, you see the concept-of center is a reasonable expectation, and illusion, invented to program the mind to think about something that is not real, and wonder to see it in specific, when there is only a vision in vague.

Science and religion both have to be protected because both must be challenged; It is not the 'proof' of 'fact' or 'god' that counts, but the wasted energy and time negotiating supposed inevitable proofs that keeps minds stuck in time and space, with only hope of eventual realization, and fear of the illusion never ending.

Another common mistake is the expectation of finding 'reality in the real world'. This is just as much a contradiction in terms, and an impossibility, as 'finding god in nature'.

See through the illusions of science and religion, it aint that hard to live without either ;-)




-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:17 PM on June 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not going away, it isn't going anywhere, because it is not here; Evolution is not a real fact of life because there is no such thing. To say that 'real fact of life' is pure and simple is a contradiction in terms.

Evolution certainly is a fact of life - there is ample evidence that it has occurred, and is in process today.  I used the term 'pure and simple' merely as a figure of speech.

Earth is not the center of the universe because there is no known 'center' to anything. Even the circle you draw on paper with a compass has no known center. There is an absurd concept called the infinite and infinitesimal, that is used to fill in the blank of where the center is supposed to be (as well as all other made-up attributes of reality), but whatever terms one uses to explain or rationalize the position of center to the circle, there is nothing other then the sense of center expressed in present, and this sense cannot be rationalized because it is universal. So, you see the concept-of center is a reasonable expectation, and illusion, invented to program the mind to think about something that is not real, and wonder to see it in specific, when there is only a vision in vague.


I'm sorry - you lost me in your metaphysical lingo.  Certainly a circle has a center.

Science and religion both have to be protected because both must be challenged; It is not the 'proof' of 'fact' or 'god' that counts, but the wasted energy and time negotiating supposed inevitable proofs that keeps minds stuck in time and space, with only hope of eventual realization, and fear of the illusion never ending.

Another common mistake is the expectation of finding 'reality in the real world'. This is just as much a contradiction in terms, and an impossibility, as 'finding god in nature'.


Jump out of an airplane without a parachute and you'll realize the reality of the force of  gravity!  

I'm sorry, your metaphysical explanations have no meaning to me.  It's nonsensical.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:49 PM on June 11, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seems to me you lost yourself on this one.

The statement that 'certainly a circle has a center' is correct. Can you figure out how?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:44 PM on June 13, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can I figure out 'how' what?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:40 PM on June 14, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another common mistake is the expectation of finding 'reality in the real world'. This is just as much a contradiction in terms, and an impossibility, as 'finding god in nature'.


No contradiction. Saying that P = P is merely a tautology. Tautologies are deductively sound.


See through the illusions of science and religion, it aint that hard to live without either ;-)


Science is an abstraction that we refer to. Calling it an illusion that one can see through and live without, however, is naivety at its finest. The pragmatic value of science is so strong in our lives that in fact not only is it hard, but it's impossible to live very long at all without it.

Earth is not the center of the universe because there is no known 'center' to anything. Even the circle you draw on paper with a compass has no known center. There is an absurd concept called the infinite and infinitesimal, that is used to fill in the blank of where the center is supposed to be (as well as all other made-up attributes of reality), but whatever terms one uses to explain or rationalize the position of center to the circle, there is nothing other then the sense of center expressed in present, and this sense cannot be rationalized because it is universal. So, you see the concept-of center is a reasonable expectation, and illusion, invented to program the mind to think about something that is not real, and wonder to see it in specific, when there is only a vision in vague.


And there we have it: one more reason not to rely on ridiculous a prior arguments like the one above. Our brains don't function on a deductive level; more than 99.9% of all the decisions we make are inductive. It is the scientific method's reliance on induction that propelled us out of the medieval ages.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 6/15/2008 at 12:00 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:55 PM on June 14, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin, it seems you are not open minded.

Tautology is something like redundancy or the needless repetition of the same sense in different words. 'Reality in the real world' is not a tautology, if I have to repeat myself, it is a contradiction in terms. Can you find the senseless terms in the statements 'reality in the real world' or 'god in nature'? It's easy, unless you're blind.

Your statement about the difficulty of living without science, having something to do with its' 'pragmatic' value, is one of the saddest, stupidest things I've ever read. It is almost as if you claim that language is made real by words... Wake-up dodo.

There is no sense about your 'a priori' something or other... What in the world are you talking about 'deductive level', 'inductive level', and being propelled by the 'scientific method' out of something called a 'medieval age'? It's like you believe in some science-fantasy story you read in high-school.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:41 PM on June 28, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

forfunt1 -

See through the illusions of science and religion, it aint that hard to live without either

How is science an illusion?  In saying 'it aint hard to live without either' - well, you're using a PC to post messages to this forum, aren't you?  It seems to me you're 'living with science' right there, whether you like it or not.  

I know that the world cannot do without science right now.

As far as religion goes, you may not need it, but it does provide many people with something that they need - spirituality.  For some people that's a belief that there is some deity that is beyond nature.  Some people need to know that they're here for a purpose, and that gives their life meaning.  I can understand that.

I don't know if I would call it a spiritual feeling, but I do experience something, an appreciation and humbleness, when I see the awesomeness of nature.  Looking out over the vast ocean at sunset, or looking up at the night sky filled with stars.  

I'm a science oriented person, but it would be a sad world if there wasn't something more beyond science.

Instead of picking apart other people's sentences, maybe you could try to express some of your thoughts relating to science and/or religion.

I guess my main point to this tread is that scientific thought/knowledge evolves over time, so that a truer understanding of nature presents itself.  I think religious thought should also evolve over time and accept new knowledge about nature.  Some religions do this.  Others have trouble with it.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:35 PM on June 29, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tautology is something like redundancy or the needless repetition of the same sense in different words. 'Reality in the real world' is not a tautology, if I have to repeat myself, it is a contradiction in terms.


Then the definitions of your terms are not in line with the definitions of the English language. "Real world" and "reality" connote the exact same thing. Unless you're talking about a different meaning of "real," the phrase "Reality in the real world" is equivalent to saying "Reality in reality" or "The real world in the real world".

None of the three phrases show any contradiction. "God" and "Nature," on the other hand, are not necessarily equivalent terms, but no matter what they are, you haven't explained what relation they have to the other phrase. You're simply saying "They are a contradiction in terms" without bothering to highlight even an inconsistency.

Can you find the senseless terms in the statements 'reality in the real world' or 'god in nature'? It's easy, unless you're blind.


Well, it must be true just because you say so.

Your statement about the difficulty of living without science, having something to do with its' 'pragmatic' value, is one of the saddest, stupidest things I've ever read.


Once again, you merely assert something without taking the time to explain your ground.

It is almost as if you claim that language is made real by words... Wake-up dodo.


You need to back up and re-read the part where I explained that science is abstraction. It seems as though your argument is that science is just a word -- a stream of arbitrary, objectively meaningless symbols. It's an interesting debate started by Plato that's almost as old as epistemology itself. A moot point, of course, because I am referring to the scientific method as a process, not a word.

But then again, I can't possibly know for sure what you're arguing because you refuse to reveal any premises for your arguments.

There is no sense about your 'a priori' something or other...


I can only assume this means you don't know what a priori as a philosophical method of argument means.

What in the world are you talking about 'deductive level', 'inductive level', and being propelled by the 'scientific method' out of something called a 'medieval age'?


Please stop pretending. You know perfectly well what I refer to when I say "Medieval Ages." Deduction and induction refer to methods of thought used in reason. Induction was first used by Aristotle to draw inferences about the world around him. It was abandoned in favor of deduction for a long period after that. Between the time of the Greeks and the Renaissance, philosophers and physicians used only deduction as a tool for reason. Induction was realized again by the scientist Francis Bacon in the 16th Century, and it ultimately allowed the fruition of the Scientific Enlightenment.

It's like you believe in some science-fantasy story you read in high-school.


It's like you don't speak English, have never taken a college intro course to philosophy, don't acknowledge history, and hate using reason to communicate your ideas.











(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/2/2008 at 1:30 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:18 PM on July 2, 2008 | IP
Truthlover

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reply to  forfunt1

Can you please take this challenge?
You have to live one year without using anything made by using science. I will live my whole life without using God.


-------
turthlover
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:12 AM on July 4, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dude, that shit is impossible. Come-on give me a break, have you understood the statement I made about how science and religion are illusions? One cannot live with science, because science does not happen, so of-course one cannot live without it either... Do you see? The same goes for religion too.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 11:10 PM on July 13, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 11:10 PM on July 13, 2008 :
Dude, that shit is impossible. Come-on give me a break, have you understood the statement I made about how science and religion are illusions? One cannot live with science, because science does not happen, so of-course one cannot live without it either... Do you see? The same goes for religion too.


Science doesn't have to "happen" to be a necessary part of sapient life. It's a process necessary for you to use. Electricity doesn't "happen" either, but your body can't live without it.




(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/14/2008 at 05:51 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 05:50 AM on July 14, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is this 'electricity', and how can it be without happening?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 3:51 PM on July 14, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a band saw that currently has a bad switch and is non-functional - I'm having a hard time living without that saw!  :0)

Actually, our brains and neural system function on chemical-electro impulses.  It would be hard for us to live without that!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:07 PM on July 14, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 6:07 PM on July 14, 2008 :
I have a band saw that currently has a bad switch and is non-functional - I'm having a hard time living without that saw!  :0)

Actually, our brains and neural system function on chemical-electro impulses.  It would be hard for us to live without that!


Sssh. Let Forfront have his pseudo-philosophical fun.





-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:08 PM on July 14, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Show me how to function on chemical-electro impulses... for that matter, show me what a chemical-electro impulse is. I have never seen one, and i can't say for certain that i have ever sensed one. Maybe you can help me find a way? Have you ever seen or sensed a chemical-electro impulse, I mean like for sure you were directly feeling or observing it? If so, how? If you can teach me how to identify this thing, maybe I will realize that I have been feeling it all along.

If you can't show me how to feel it, or that i have been feeling it all along, then I have to disregard these things (neural systems and chemical-electro impulses) as ideas and nowhere else then in the head.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:57 PM on July 16, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 7:57 PM on July 16, 2008 :
Show me how to function on chemical-electro impulses... for that matter, show me what a chemical-electro impulse is. I have never seen one, and i can't say for certain that i have ever sensed one. Maybe you can help me find a way? Have you ever seen or sensed a chemical-electro impulse, I mean like for sure you were directly feeling or observing it? If so, how? If you can teach me how to identify this thing, maybe I will realize that I have been feeling it all along.

If you can't show me how to feel it, or that i have been feeling it all along, then I have to disregard these things (neural systems and chemical-electro impulses) as ideas and nowhere else then in the head.



Bite through a plugged-in electrical chord and get back to us if you live. Even better, if you're unharmed, you've just proved that electricity is nothing but conception that has no physical existence.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:56 PM on July 16, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, biting through an electrical cord proves 'electricity' is happening, and this has something to do with the way 'brains and neural systems' function. I am not going to make any such assumptions.

It seems you would have me presume that memory of experience is proof of presence.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 9:10 PM on July 17, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 9:10 PM on July 17, 2008 :
It seems you would have me presume that memory of experience is proof of presence.


No individual's memory should be considered proof of anything.  Notice that in court, eyewitnesses are held to provide the weakest evidence.  

This is why in science, ideas must be published and held up for scrutiny and criticism.  This allows ideas presented to be tested and cross-checked by others.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:16 AM on July 18, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I meant in general.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:10 PM on July 18, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is in general.

Have a specific?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:03 PM on July 18, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 9:10 PM on July 17, 2008 :
So, biting through an electrical cord proves 'electricity' is happening, and this has something to do with the way 'brains and neural systems' function. I am not going to make any such assumptions.

It seems you would have me presume that memory of experience is proof of presence.



I don't use proof to do anything in my life whatsoever, and neither do you. Proof is deductive and an unattainable standard for beliefs. Proof is where the conclusion follows necessarily form the premises, and there is no belief we hold whose premises aren't based on other premises, and so it is therefore impossible to reach. You cannot prove anything -- even the legitimacy of your own senses -- to anyone, including yourself.

Instead, you rely on inductive reasoning  methods to form your beliefs. Everything you believe follows probably from the evidence you have access to. For example, "The nerves in my fingers sense slime. Therefore, I am probably touching slime." You can never say anything is certain. It is possible you don't actually have fingers and that the sensation you believe to be feeling is actually a real sensation as opposed to an artificial feeling misinterpreted by your brain.

You function through the use of induction to form your beliefs. Science is merely a way of putting inductive principles to work in a way best examines evidence. The belief that you have a body is ultimately based on the scientific method. You're using science to argue against science right now.

That's what people who can understand English call "a contradiction in terms."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:34 AM on July 19, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You make sense in your explanation as to the impossibility of proof. However, you lose me when you start writing about belief, and something called inductive reasoning... I think you are talking about things in your head, and using words to the best of your ability to explain what those things in your head might be. This is fine, as entertainment, as long as you don't expect to say anything meaningful.

Questioning the legitimacy of sense is fine as an intellectual exercise, however if you attempt to communicate your concept of sense as impossible to prove, you only succeed in reinforcing notions of self as an individual, and diminishing the relevance (to self) of intellectual notions corresponding to actual, sensual, or universal happenings that remind the agency of individual-intellectual-self of its' connection to everything. Subjecting sense to intellectual scrutiny is not proof of anything, not even indicative that something impossible to prove cannot be said to happen... remember that language is rooted in the common sense of self expressed... not just a record of reason.

However you say 'electricity', I might have a sense of something happening, and i can only relate to your expression by feeling something that you express.

The self is not an individual, but of course it is; either way there is no proof. There is no proof of presence, and that is why i do not presume to understand things happening by reviewing memories of my experience. Do you see how without retrospective analysis of my personal experience, I have no 'electricity'... of-course you may go so far as to say i have no senses, no name, or anything for that matter to speak of, and you would be correct; the moment i stop looking back on the person that I see my self as, the one seeing myself look at other things, I will not remember a difference between me and anything else and all 'evidence' of relationship will fail.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 9:11 PM on July 19, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you allow for reality outside of your own mind?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:12 PM on July 19, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, they're speaking mumble-jumbo as far as I'm concerned.  They entirely lost the point of this thread.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:53 AM on July 20, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,

I misread your statement earlier about individual memory. We seem to agree in general, however there is something in your statement about eye-witnesses that I can't totally agree with.

The courts consider eye-witness accounts to be the most unreliable evidence because the legal system has come to consider sense a liability. Science relies on repetition in order to know, since sense cannot repeat or reproduce, there is no 'guarantee' that what a person says they saw is what they actually saw because the technical-legal jargon (scientific) uses words that are mere record of memory, and not means for conveying sense. In order to relate experience, one must express their sense, like painting a picture, in an honest way so that their unique experience is seen through not only their words, but from their self expression. The censorship of individual expression, in the court room, is due the the unique nature of self expression that does not allow for any strict knowledge, or interpreted understanding, in legal jargon , that actually expresses the same meaning. In other words, it is the failure of legal jargon to express the self that has sort-of forced the courts to exclude self expression, allowing only for strict use of legal terms, in order to limit the possibility that some body will be misunderstood (or make the courts look deaf)... ironically, this censorship has made the courts deaf (effectively) and made it very difficult for pretty much any sane person to express themselves (on any 'side' of an issue) without having to overcome a strong repressive communication barrier.

The situation in science is similar, in so far as sense-expression is liable to sound contradictory to knowledge.

As for your most recent question, the answer is no.

(Edited by forfunt1 7/22/2008 at 8:19 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:16 PM on July 22, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


My favorite solipsist philosopher is Jimmy Buffet.  As he says: "If I don't remember it, it didn't happen."


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:19 PM on July 24, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have considered the statement you quoted, and it does not make sense.

One might say 'if I don't remember it, it is not remembered', but of course this statement is true without saying. Anyway, 'It' does not happen, 'it' is an idea, just a mnemonic for what some self wills to remember and re-consider. Saying that 'it' did not happen because it was not remembered implies that 'it' actually can somehow happen; this is a fine example of how the mind becomes confused by considering the plausibility of impossible things.

Furthermore, by stating that 'it' did not happen (in the past-tense), implies the possibility of happening in the past; so now not only is the impossible 'it' happening, but 'it' is not happening now, instead there is some made-up past-time where it can occur.

I wonder if Jimmy Buffet is your favorite solipsist philosopher because he is a good example of how solipsists tend to make idiot statements.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:36 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 8:36 PM on August 19, 2008 :
I have considered the statement you quoted, and it does not make sense.

One might say 'if I don't remember it, it is not remembered', but of course this statement is true without saying. Anyway, 'It' does not happen, 'it' is an idea, just a mnemonic for what some self wills to remember and re-consider. Saying that 'it' did not happen because it was not remembered implies that 'it' actually can somehow happen; this is a fine example of how the mind becomes confused by considering the plausibility of impossible things.



You have not shown that the author of the statement in question is not aware of that. It could very well be that, like most English speakers who understand words are merely abstractions to ideas, he is taking for granted the reader comprehending the abstraction.

If you actually believed what you say, you would discount your very own statement "[I]t does not make sense" as nonsensical because something that does not occur obviously doesn't "make" anything either.

Stupid.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:47 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do we need to review basic word usage and sentence structuring?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:53 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 8:53 PM on August 19, 2008 :
Do we need to review basic word usage and sentence structuring?


That statement does not make sense. "We" is a word -- a string of symbols, an idea. As Professor Forfunt has explained many times already, ideas do not occur. That which does not occur cannot possibly need anything either.


Thanks for showing me the light of trolling, though I must say it's unsurprisingly dull.





(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/19/2008 at 9:01 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:58 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, I guess you have understood my point, now not only are we finished with this discussion, but there is really nothing else to discuss.

Let science and religion (and 'it' for that matter) fade out of memory, and one may live naturally ever after.  ;-)

p.s. yep, it is dull... and what's worse, it gives me headaches.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 9:09 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 9:09 PM on August 19, 2008 :
Okay, I guess you have understood my point, now not only are we finished with this discussion, but there is really nothing else to discuss.

Let science and religion (and 'it' for that matter) fade out of memory, and one may live naturally ever after.  ;-)

p.s. yep, it is dull... and what's worse, it gives me headaches.


If you agree with my point, you've effectively nullified everything you said. You've revealed that any attachment to your "point" that you claim to have is dishonest.

See, if you honestly believe that the statement "It doesn't make sense" is nonsensical, you wouldn't write it! The method you rely on to convey your thoughts is the very same method you call nonsensical and meaningless. You don't have a point to understand.

Whether or not language refers to anything real is irrelevant so long as we can use it to communicate. We don't need epistemic grounds to rely on language; we use it because of pragmatism -- the idea that something is useful regardless of its truth value. You don't seem to want to admit this, but unfortunately for you, you automatically admit it simply by communicating in words. You can't rely on words to make the point that words are meaningless. In doing so, you defeat yourself before you even leave home plate.

This reminds me of something Thomas Molner once said:

"Those who argue against reason are obliged to use it in so doing."


Anyway, thanks for stating what everyone already knew and pretending it was important enough to warrant completely derailing this thread.









(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/19/2008 at 10:30 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:03 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:12 PM on July 19, 2008 :
Do you allow for reality outside of your own mind?



Quote from forfunt1 at 8:16 PM on July 22, 2008 :
Apoapsis,

. . .

As for your most recent question, the answer is no.


Quote from forfunt1 at 8:36 PM on August 19, 2008 :
. . .
I wonder if Jimmy Buffet is your favorite solipsist philosopher because he is a good example of how solipsists tend to make idiot statements.


quod erat demonstrandum


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:54 AM on August 20, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,

So, I'm curious, are you interested in sounding clever, or more intelligent then I am? Because you have consistently demonstrated that you are capable of being clever and sounding intelligent (and when trying to out-do me, I am sure you have found no significant difficulty), but you have not told me if science or religion are real to you.

I have stated that science and religion are figments of imagination, illusions, all make-believe (this is the point that 'I don't have'). All you have told me is that I can't argue as well as you (I am certainly not prepared to), and that you are so inflexible in your stance that you need to look for weakness in my arguments (finding them at your own convenience) in order to dominate the argument in a manner that lessens my credibility, and pleases your ego.

Of course you cannot be wrong when debating with somebody like me, I am not smart enough, or cunning enough to challenge your authority on any subject.

So, this is where we agree to disagree, right?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:02 PM on August 21, 2008 | IP
USSOCOM

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amazing.
I've been on this forum for aprox. 3 hours now.
And it seems that where ever forfunt goes, productivity slows.
Enjoy not getting anywhere? Hmmm? How bout some progression? Too much to ask? Get your jollies by talking in circles fairy poet? Incase you're wondering, this thread is not " how to master words" or " practice being an english professor". I believe it's " science vs religion ". Yeah that's it. Simple language is a most effective way to communicate. Communication is not efficient in the midst of confusion.


To the topic: Can we agree that science has different 'sides'? For instance: the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor vs the dinosaurs were killed by disease.
If this is the case then strict religion and science ( perhaps not popular science) can peacefully coexist.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 09:25 AM on August 22, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Given the premise that 'simple language is the most effective way to communicate', it seems necessary to simplify ones usage, in process and product, of language to the furthest extent possible in order to accomplish (or attempt to accomplish) the supposed status of 'most effective in terms of language usage demonstrated by simplified product (ends), indicative of simplified process (means).

Let us then consider the words; what are the words 'science' and 'religion'? Or perhaps more acutely, do these words have any meaning?

Every idea is a notion of itself, center or core to a concept, a periphery of relatively relevant reasonable terms, that must substantiate all peripheral notions, otherwise, those notions have no relevance, however the core or central notion is a supposed fact, or point of validation, a verified representation of an intellectual agency or body of thoughts given opportunity and having such opportunity governed by the same set of rules, or designed to interact to the effect of a product, pattern or order that reflects on the enforcement or effect of one singular rule or set of similar rules.

That is to say that the ideas peripheral to the central notion (such as 'science' or 'religion') are going to remain peripheral to the central notion as long as one holds truth to the idea that either 'science' or 'religion' have some force of gravitation, some relative significance, that affords them the opportunity to hold together the agencies of 'science' or 'religion' so that any willing individual that endeavors to ask 'what is this thing' may find some semblance of an answer when considering whether the thing is a 'matter of scientific fact' or a 'matter of religious faith'.

Knowing the difference between 'faith' and 'fact' is just something the mind does when either conditioned by fear or fatigue it refuses to wonder freely.

Long story short, one makes the assumption that 'science' as a word has meaning, in order to classify thoughts as scientific. The thoughts that one has about science, or as science, do not make science anything other then the imaginary center of a circle, or concept, made up in order for the concept to have a core, because of- course, without the fundamentals, thoughts would just be random, accidental, innocent, fun, free, imaginary.

Keeping words in mind is the responsibility of an agent of the consensus mind. The agency of intellectual self is the bi-product of the agency of the intellectual other, supposed to keep ideas, and concepts somehow on an even keel, as if the number of thoughts, the gravity of concepts, the validation of self versus the other by any means of contrast or comparison, must demonstrate some semblance or similarity that can be construed as a unifying characteristic indicative of equality between the supposed self and other.

follow?

(Edited by forfunt1 8/29/2008 at 7:14 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:05 PM on August 29, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Forfunt1, you remind of a teacher in an episode of Simpsons where girls and boys were divided in math classes. The boys got conventional math education, whereas the girls got this teacher who asked them to stop thinking of math as problems that need to be solved, they should instead ask themselves how numbers made them feel, and what color they were and such...

What are words? What is life? Do we really even exist? Who says I´m actually in Britain, maybe I´m in Australia, who decides? That´s your way of thinking, and that´s fine. But it really doesn´t have any use whatsoever in a science debate, and you´re really not contributing in any intellectual way. So what are u trying to achieve? If you wanna be all existential and New Age, by all means, but there are forums for that way of thinking. This is a science forum, with scientific way of thinking, with scientific language.


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 07:11 AM on August 30, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go Reason4all, do that damn thing! I think you just qualified for a bozo button and a cookie. Can you read, or are you just looking at the words?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 6:43 PM on August 30, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reason4all, you're starting with the flawed premise that Forfunt is actually looking for an intellectual conversation. He's not. He's more than smart enough to recognize his argument doesn't apply here. He doesn't even believe his argument in the first place (if he did, he wouldn't be able to understand what we are saying or even communicate his own objections to what we are saying because our only method of communication with him... is words).

His pseudo-sophistry aside, we can be especially assured Forfunt is not interested in genuine conversation due to his continued reliance on insult. He doesn't want to learn; he wants to derail threads and call people stupid.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:00 PM on August 30, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Entwickelncollin,

I suspect there is a greater potential that asking questions, instead of making assumptions, will help you understand.

You couldn't be farther off topic. Focus. It is not my fault that the truth insults you, and when I say somebody is stupid, I usually mean it.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:34 PM on August 30, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How are you NOT just trying to make a semantics argument?  Words have a known meaning.  It is how we are able to use them to express ourselves to others.  If words were completely interchangeable then it wouldn't matter what we said, the words could be interpreted completely different.  For example, if I were to say "Your argument is completely nonsensical" you could interpret that as me saying "Your argument makes complete sense".
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 8:14 PM on August 30, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, ArcanaKnight, it is interesting that you ask if I am 'NOT just trying to make a semantics argument?' In this case that is most of what I am doing. You are the first person to point out that when discussing the meaning of words, one is effectively considering semantics.

Anyway, how do you feel about the words 'science' and 'religion?

How you interpret these two words, and implicate your interpretation, may not be the same as other people's, and that is why I urge you to figure out how you feel, without focusing on the meaning of the words, so that you might remember that you made up the meaning, or allowed your self to be taught an interpretation from somebody else, but either way, that you have no real-idea of what science or religion are, you just think you do.

Bottom line; I can argue away any person's interpretation, because there is no real interpretation, there is either the objective or the subjective, and neither is real or proven, they are just determined by the number of people that support the particular version of how to tell the story of the mythical fact and the legendary faith.

Is the thought that 'science' or 'religion' are real actually of any worth to your life? How?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 6:51 PM on August 31, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pardon me, but that is all just existentialist crap.  Again I say, words have meaning.  All you are doing is trying to confuse the issue.  The word science is used to refer to a field of knowledge.  It wouldn't matter what series of letters you would assign in the place of that word, it would still refer to that field of knowledge; you could call it wonka instead, but it would still be referring to the same thing.  The same goes for the word religion.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 9:12 PM on August 31, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, then let us consider the "field of knowledge'.

What is knowledge or what is known? Well, of course this question is impossible to answer in specific (as for example a 'known' thing being a 'fact'), because there are infinite 'facts' to be considered. So, moving on to find something common of 'fact'; How is every 'fact' the same? How is every 'fact' 'known'?

All knowledge, every fact, must be remembered to be anything. What must be remembered, by nature, is memory; Memories are remembered, what is remembered is memory.

Knowledge is now established simply as memory.

What is the 'field', as used in 'field of knowledge'? The word seems to be used to describe something broad, vast, spread-out, or implying a comprehensive look at something. In this case the view is of knowledge, so a comprehensive look at memory is the field of knowledge, or to put it into perspective, the scope of memory in view is a 'field of knowledge'.

Now you might see how science, as a reference to a 'field of knowledge' is simply a way of describing what one may be searching through, or making an effort to find clarity or consistency in, or the reference from which one derives the memorized values of past events, in order to sum-up to a total being of something now, or more directly, something known as reality.

Science is just a disciplined thought process that a mind can do.

(Edited by forfunt1 8/31/2008 at 10:05 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 10:02 PM on August 31, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 10:02 PM on August 31, 2008 :
Okay, then let us consider the "field of knowledge'.

What is knowledge or what is known? Well, of course this question is impossible to answer in specific (as for example a 'known' thing being a 'fact'), because there are infinite 'facts' to be considered. So, moving on to find something common of 'fact'; How is every 'fact' the same? How is every 'fact' 'known'?

All knowledge, every fact, must be remembered to be anything. What must be remembered, by nature, is memory; Memories are remembered, what is remembered is memory.

Knowledge is now established simply as memory.

What is the 'field', as used in 'field of knowledge'? The word seems to be used to describe something broad, vast, spread-out, or implying a comprehensive look at something. In this case the view is of knowledge, so a comprehensive look at memory is the field of knowledge, or to put it into perspective, the scope of memory in view is a 'field of knowledge'.

Now you might see how science, as a reference to a 'field of knowledge' is simply a way of describing what one may be searching through, or making an effort to find clarity or consistency in, or the reference from which one derives the memorized values of past events, in order to sum-up to a total being of something now, or more directly, something known as reality.

Science is just a disciplined thought process that a mind can do.


Wow! That's exactly what we've all been saying it is since Post #1! It's as though Forfunt1's contribution is telling us what we already accept.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:15 AM on September 1, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey man, pay attention, don't forget that there is more to what i am saying. You seem inclined to find fault in my arguments, as if you are taking something personally.

Well, unless you have something to add, I'd appreciate it if you stop accusing me af repeating myself, or whatever it is you say I am doing.

Will you explain, since you agree with the statement of science being only a thought process, how science has any bearing on living your life?

p.s. please do not make an a$$ of yourself, change the size of the text. You did not use those words, and I did not place any special emphasis on them.

(Edited by forfunt1 9/1/2008 at 02:05 AM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 02:01 AM on September 1, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 02:01 AM on September 1, 2008 :
Hey man, pay attention, don't forget that there is more to what i am saying. You seem inclined to find fault in my arguments, as if you are taking something personally.

Well, unless you have something to add, I'd appreciate it if you stop accusing me af repeating myself, or whatever it is you say I am doing.

Will you explain, since you agree with the statement of science being only a thought process, how science has any bearing on living your life?

p.s. please do not make an a$$ of yourself, change the size of the text. You did not use those words, and I did not place any special emphasis on them.

(Edited by forfunt1 9/1/2008 at 02:05 AM).



Science is a process. I've been saying that since the beginning

Example: "You need to back up and re-read the part where I explained that science is abstraction. It seems as though your argument is that science is just a word -- a stream of arbitrary, objectively meaningless symbols. It's an interesting debate started by Plato that's almost as old as epistemology itself. A moot point, of course, because I am referring to the scientific method as a process, not a word."


Will you explain, since you agree with the statement of science being only a thought process, how science has any bearing on living your life?


Thought processes are tools. We use the scientific method to better our lives every day. Whenever you assume something because of evidence based on memory/experience, you are utilizing inductive reasoning, a part of the scientific method, to accomplish a goal, whether it's assuming that the knot you tie on your shoe will be as useful as it was the last time you tied it, or assuming that because radiation tends to be lethal, it might aid in destroying cancer cells.

Scientific reasoning is so important to our survival in today's world that we literally cannot live without it. We use it to make medicine, invent machinery, gather resources, and even to protect ourselves from making hazardous choices, such as drinking bleach because it smells interesting.

In stark contrast, faith-based thought processes draw conclusions without evidence. We have people blowing themselves up and murdering one another not because they have empirical evidence supporting their beliefs but because they merely want to believe their beliefs are correct. Religion is dangerous in this way. Countless people of faith would undo our scientific progress into areas like evolution, medicine, development and stem cell research based on purely unsupportable religious beliefs.

This thread was created to highlight the differences and/or common ground between the two thought process of science and religion. Whether or not you call thought processes "real" or "proved" is completely, totally, entirely, utterly irrelevant because thought processes do affect our lives. In fact, I'd say that thought processes are far more influential in a person's life than any physical object because, after all, a person is identified first and foremost by... their thoughts.







(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/1/2008 at 04:09 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 04:08 AM on September 1, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin, why are you obsessing over my comment?

First, the explanation was given to somebody besides you. Second, I never told you that considering science a thought process was incorrect or inaccurate.

It seems to me that you are hypercritical to what I have to say because you see that I am making sense, you refuse to admit that science and religion are not real in any way, and you are terrified of living without your precious ideas.

You may be comforted by fact and faith, but that is no excuse for your denial; You are giving meaning to the words science and religion and using them to your advantage, because you are afraid of what life would be like without the artificial flavors you have become addicted to, or the artificial value that you measure your so-called self by.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 07:10 AM on September 1, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, the explanation was given to somebody besides you. Second, I never told you that considering science a thought process was incorrect or inaccurate.


I'm aware of that. It's a simple matter of reading your posts to figure that one out. You refused to address the issue and tried to confuse everyone. Your argument is not hard to summarize in a single sentence, but you couldn't even do that. You could have offered foundational premises, explained it through metaphors, used examples... heck, anything relevant to making a point. Instead you offered mystical mumble-jumble that made neither epistemic nor grammatical sense.

It seems to me that you are hypercritical to what I have to say because you see that I am making sense, you refuse to admit that science and religion are not real in any way, and you are terrified of living without your precious ideas.


Sorry, but you haven't presented anything earth-shattering. Everyone knows words aren't real things. It doesn't matter what you call it -- we could even not have any words to describe what science and religion define, and that wouldn't affect the separate thought processes we chose to assign them to.

In the same way that not knowing what math is does not stop two sticks from equaling four sticks when another two sticks are added, you calling science and religion "not real" does not stop people from making conclusions based off of two criteria, evidence and no evidence.

You may be comforted by fact and faith, but that is no excuse for your denial; You are giving meaning to the words science and religion and using them to your advantage, because you are afraid of what life would be like without the artificial flavors you have become addicted to, or the artificial value that you measure your so-called self by.


The belief you claim to hold in that paragraph is either based on evidence or it is not. It doesn't matter what you call it. Deny the reality of "science" all you want -- so long as you use evidence to form beliefs, you're going through the same thought process that many human beings choose to call "scientific reasoning."

The problem with your argument is that you've lost  it before you've even begun stating it: It does not apply. In the exact same way, a three-year-old infant doesn't accept any linguistic descriptions of the physical world, but that won't be enough to let it defy gravity and start flying away.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/1/2008 at 12:23 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:19 PM on September 1, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.