[BuddhaRoadkill]

"Eeek, they mentioned God, it must be unscientific".

Well ... maybe because it is unscientific. Because there is no way to prove/disprove the existance of a god(s), science really can't say anything much about it. And by the same reasoning, god(s) cannot be used to substantiate a scientific claim. Science uses measurable units to describe relationships of one object to another. It defines the univerese in terms of itself. Instead of saying "Gods pissed, he shook the earth", science looks to plate techtonics and associated relationships.

What part of this are you not understanding?

 

[Duffle]

If I have such a poor understanding, what am I leaving out? Not in a defensive way, btw, just as a question.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

How odd...I didn't know I refused to let scientists examine my theorys ;-). I usually view it as the other way around, Scientists saying, "Eeek, they mentioned God, it must be unscientific". Oddly enough there are some rather prominent scientists that believe in a god. There just recently(ish) was a renouned atheist phiosopher (Antony Flew) who converted to something like Deism at 81, after a life of atheism. Even Stephen Hawking, one of the most prominent scientists/astrophysicists says that God could exist. Admittedly, neither of these people consider themselves Christians by any sense, but if Stephen Hawking says that God could exist, we could probably say that it's not completely unscientific.

D.

 

[Changleen]

How odd...I didn't know I refused to let scientists examine my theorys ;-).

There a few of us here who are a bit scientifimical. Give us 'one of your theories' to look at.

 

[Changleen]

but if Stephen Hawking says that God could exist, we could probably say that it's not completely unscientific.

He says that because our current understanding of science does not preclude the existance of a creator of the universe of some description. (As an aside there is no evidence said creator has bothered to interact with his work ever since, but anyway..)
It would be unscientific to say god (in the way Hawking is refering to god - not at all the same as the traditional christian/hindu/muslim god) does not exist as we have no direct evidence either way.

However this has no bearing on our argument about creationism as there are facts that disprove it's tenents.

 

[Duffle]

Mrargh. Silly browser posted it without telling me to.

Just because bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics doesn't mean they can turn into fish.

What part of this are you not understanding?

What part of this are you not understanding? Because we cannot prove the existance of God doesn't mean he doesn't exist, nor does it mean we cannot make theorys based upon his existance. That is the fundamental starting point of science; building theorys on previously formulated theorys. Any basic science or geometry book should tell you this. As we've said in this thread, you can't prove evolution either. So how does that make it a logical argument to say you can't prove a god exists to create us.

The Short Proof of Evolution

This is a very interesting essay. I however would consider it to be horrifically formed, however. You cannot use inductive logic with three poorly selected premises. The first two are completly applicable to supporting Creationism, and the third is highly debated! How on earth can one make an argument out of two buckets without bottoms and one with many holes?

Also, this fails to explain the origin of living organisms, which I would say is sliiiightly important to this topic. In fact, this essay completely ignores it.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

dude, you are not getting many responses, or rebuttals, or deep analysis because your grasp of evolution and the scientific method is very limited...

it not that your arguments need to be refuted in the grounds of formal logic because they are coherent.... is more that you need somebody with lots of time to write enough to show you and point the many flaws in your reasoning, and develop the shortcommings of your grasp on evolution/biology/theoretical physics/hawkings and every-subject-you-rely-on...

 

[Duffle]

No one has even tried to say what my grasp of any of those subjects lacks. At all.

Anyhow, I don't think that this thread will go much of anywhere, so I miiight not be back. We'll see.

 

[Ridemonkey]

No one has even tried to say what my grasp of any of those subjects lacks. At all.

Anyhow, I don't think that this thread will go much of anywhere, so I miiight not be back. We'll see.

Why don't you want to discuss dragons with me?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

just to start... check your understanding on the difference between "scientific theory" and "theory", and what makes the "scientific method" so valuable...

learn to differentiate what constitutes a falsible (sp?) statement, and what not.. and why a non-falsible statement cannot be accepted as a reasonable explanation....

 

[Ridemonkey]

just to start... check your understanding on the difference between "scientific theory" and "theory", and what makes the "scientific method" so valuable...

learn to differentiate what constitutes a falsible (sp?) statement, and what not.. and why a non-falsible statement cannot be accepted as a reasonable explanation....

You will only gain the upper hand when you realize that people like this can't be reasoned with.

 

[smedford]

Anyhow, I don't think that this thread will go much of anywhere, so I miiight not be back. We'll see.

Yeah, put on those blinders. Choose not to see.

 

[Ridemonkey]

On another note, in the future I would like to spend a lot of time organizing people against religion in government and public life. Does anyone know any sites with info on the subject?

 

[reflux]

On another note, in the future I would like to spend a lot of time organizing people against religion in government and public life. Does anyone know any sites with info on the subject?

www.ride:monkey:.com

Hey, someone had to say it.

 

[Toshi]

Mrargh. Silly browser posted it without telling me to.

Just because bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics doesn't mean they can turn into fish.

that's a lovely blanket statement. did you hear that from your pastor or your bible study leader? care to back that up with anything more concrete? something from this field called "genetics" perhaps?

 

[Duffle]

I am not blinding myself. I'm merely trying not to make more enemys than neccesary.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

www.ride:monkey:.com

Hey, someone had to say it.

Damn ... guess I'll be heading over to the Add-Free thread. Gotta show my support for that!

 

[reflux]

I am not blinding myself. I'm merely trying not to make more enemys than neccesary.

You don't make enemies unless your name is N8.

 

[Changleen]

Mrargh. Silly browser posted it without telling me to.

God posted it for you. j/k

Just because bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics doesn't mean they can turn into fish.

If you accept that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, which we (humanity) has proven they can, then you are accepting they can change. One of the points of creationism is that organisms do not change, they are created by god as they are. A theory we might suggest from observing that bacteria an become resistant to antibiotics is that 'organisms are capable of change'. Creationism says 'organisms are not capable of change, they exist as god created them.' We have now have more evidence that this is wrong than that it is right. What evidence do you have that organisms cannot change?

What part of this are you not understanding? Because we cannot prove the existance of God doesn't mean he doesn't exist,

Correct.

nor does it mean we cannot make theorys based upon his existance.

You are welcome to try and make a theory based on his existance - Go ahead. Here, let me start you off:

"If god exists then when I do XXX, then god will make YYY will happen, and I can show it is nothing else causing it."

All you have to do is find something to fill in XXX and YYY that is repeatable and consistant, and can be demonstrated.

That is the fundamental starting point of science; building theorys on previously formulated theorys. Any basic science or geometry book should tell you this.

Not quite. We base theories on observed phenomena. We occasionally can build one theory on top of another, but if the theory you base your second theory on has no evidence for it, you're in trouble to start with.

As we've said in this thread, you can't prove evolution either.

Although we do not have definitive proof of evolution, we have thousands, if not millions of pieces of evidence that support it. How many pieces of evidence do you have that support the theory of creationism?

So how does that make it a logical argument to say you can't prove a god exists to create us.

If it's so illogical, prove god exists.

This is a very interesting essay.

I'm glad you think so.

I however would consider it to be horrifically formed, however. You cannot use inductive logic with three poorly selected premises.

How are these 'poorly supported premises'? They are 'facts' - 1) You can see the layers, 2) There are different fossils in the different layers, and 3) The fossils increase in complexity based on derivations from earlier forms.

The first two are completly applicable to supporting Creationism, and the third is highly debated! How on earth can one make an argument out of two buckets without bottoms and one with many holes?

OK, lets step away from this particular sceanario for a moment. Here is a situation: We, as rational creatures, observe a behaviour of the universe. We observe three distinct features of that behaviour, that as far as we can see, occur wherever we observe that behaviour - without fail. In our group, we propose two distinct theories to explain that behaviour based on the testable features we have observed. Theory A explains two aspects of three features, and theory B explains all three. Which theory do we move forward with?

Also, this fails to explain the origin of living organisms, which I would say is sliiiightly important to this topic. In fact, this essay completely ignores it.

Have you ever watched the patterns in boiling oil? Have you ever seen the patterns Ice makes when it freezes? Why is so hard to believe order can rise out of chaos given a large mount of energy being thrown around?

 

[fluff]

God posted it for you. j/k
If you accept that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, which we (humanity) has proven they can, then you are accepting they can change. One of the points of creationism is that organisms do not change, they are created by god as they are.

Have you ever watched the patterns in boiling oil? Have you ever seen the patterns Ice makes when it freezes? Why is so hard to believe order can rise out of chaos given a large mount of energy being thrown around?

Apologies for the snippage, too many arguments in one post...

That bacteria can 'become resistant' is not proof that they can become fish, I can become resistant to certain viruses (courtesy of a well-functioning immune system), sadly that has not led me to develop the ability to fly, perhaps my offspring may? Sickle-cell anaemia gives resistance to malaria, yet it does not lead to species change.

(Creationism does not deny mutation per se btw.)

Interesting that you use order from chaos as part of your scientific argument when the second law of themodynamics postulates the opposite..

As for your nice article posted earlier Duffle has actually pointed out the flaws in the logic. Because B happens after A does not prove a link (it does no deny one either), it only shows a chronological sequence.

Here is one of the problems I have with classical evolutionary theory - given that each complex life form must have a parent (from which it derives its DNA) and in order to have offspring must have a mate (with compatible DNA) where did the first pair of lunged parents spring from? When did sufficient organisms spontaneously become warm-blooded?

The more complex the life-form and the bigger the difference the harder it becomes to believe that mutation works. A bacterium becoming resistant to an antibiotic would be a great example of natural selection (and the antibiotic a great driver toward it) but that is cellular-level change, not complex organism change (a la backbone/womb/extra (functional) stomachs etc.)

 

[Changleen]

Apologies for the snippage, too many arguments in one post...

You have something better to do?

That bacteria can 'become resistant' is not proof that they can become fish, I can become resistant to certain viruses (courtesy of a well-functioning immune system), sadly that has not led me to develop the ability to fly, perhaps my offspring may? Sickle-cell anaemia gives resistance to malaria, yet it does not lead to species change.

Oh, I like that one. Diseases may prompt change of a population through encouraging a particular mutation to be preferable, especially if the disease is organ or feature specific.

(Creationism does not deny mutation per se btw.)

I don't really see how its got a leg to stand on then.

Interesting that you use order from chaos as part of your scientific argument when the second law of themodynamics postulates the opposite..

This is one of my favourite things. The second law of thermodynamics implies an average direction for the complexity of the universe and entropic processes. However it is natural, when there is particular concentration of energy in one area of a system, (such as a planet in the relative average sea of space) that the entropic potential is very high (e.g. that's a lot of energy to disperse) that the entropic process encourages more complex (higher energy) systems to evolve in order to enable the faster dispersal of that energy to the natural higher entropy, background state of the surrounding area in the system. We see this all around us everyday. You might see it the effects of brownian motion in you tea, or the 6 sided cells you see in boiling oil. You might see it as the jungle soaking up the incredable power of the sun and turning it's power into slighly warm CO2. and As a Materials Engineer I got to see it close up in the microscopic and atomic formation of crystals and grains and in nearly every phase change of most materials. It's so cool.

As for your nice article posted earlier Duffle has actually pointed out the flaws in the logic. Because B happens after A does not prove a link (it does no deny one either), it only shows a chronological sequence.

That is correct, but due to our intelligence and imagination, we see the similarities of the fossils in certain ways progressing through the fossil record. We see these changes and we weigh this information (creationists take note here in conjunction with everything else we know, such as the reation of a bacteria to antibiotics, or the ability of viruses and bacteria to mutate and jump species, such as from birds (Asian Bird Flu) to humans (a good example of natural selection driven evolution).

From this we can theorise that in reality evolution is a naturally occuring process driven by mutation, circumstance and natural selection, with the long term result of dispersing energy as uniformly as possible across the unverse.

As Intelligent beings we have the unique opportunity to percieve the forces of the universe and ride the wave of energy dispersal, prolonging and increasing the influence of intelligence in the cosmos, and hopefully having a good time.

It really pisses me off about religion that it activley discourages the progression of knowledge and scientific advancement that may delay our spread beyond this rock long enough to be denied the chance forever by some stray meteorite. The denial of the progression of knowledge is like a cancer on life, and should be treated as such.

Death may be a natural part of life but I for one like my life enough to want to prolong the life of all things and offer the chance for many many more to follow me and enjoy it like I have.

We do not have definative proof that some beneficial, scripture writing, bush burning, sea parting god does not reach down and change each individual gene of every mutation of every creature throughout history, but we have a lot of evidence that he does it utterly randomly and cares little about the result if he does.

Death occurs more than life in the universe and eventually, unless we get clever enough to define our own reality, we too will die. As we discussed with entropy, the direction of the universe is towards a lifeless expanse of grey, near absolute zero ground state, just like every other explosion you ever saw. How quickly can you build a surfboard if you don't understand fluid dynamics?

Here is one of the problems I have with classical evolutionary theory - given that each complex life form must have a parent (from which it derives its DNA) and in order to have offspring must have a mate (with compatible DNA) where did the first pair of lunged parents spring from? When did sufficient organisms spontaneously become warm-blooded?

When the first chemical reacted with oxygen and oxidised releasing energy the idea of the lung was created. When the first organism harnessed the oxidation of a chemical in itself or it's surroundings the lung took a huge step forward. When the first protozoa developed a process to make the harvest of this energy more efficient, when this process first occupied a defined space in the organism, when it first pulled in fresh fuel and expelled it burnt waste, the idea of the lung evolved. Through science and understanding many 'unexplanable leaps' have been understood. Muslim/Christian 'god' is a very old, very crap explanation which should have died many many years ago and only exists today as a method of control of people's minds.

The more complex the life-form and the bigger the difference the harder it becomes to believe that mutation works. A bacterium becoming resistant to an antibiotic would be a great example of natural selection (and the antibiotic a great driver toward it) but that is cellular-level change, not complex organism change (a la backbone/womb/extra (functional) stomachs etc.)

We've forgotten (if we ever knew) how to think long term, and none of us (currently) live anything like long enough to really percieve it in a really tangible way. Do you propose a theory where natural selection and mutation only drives evolution so far?

I like this thread.

 

[Duffle]

Props to you Changleen, you made me like it again! Now it's my turn for snipping about, bwaha.

You might see it the effects of brownian motion in you tea, or the 6 sided cells you see in boiling oil. You might see it as the jungle soaking up the incredable power of the sun and turning it's power into slighly warm CO2. and As a Materials Engineer I got to see it close up in the microscopic and atomic formation of crystals and grains and in nearly every phase change of most materials. It's so cool.

That's all well and good, but you're flipping about like a fish on that essay, which clearly stated that "all creatures must have a living parent". But if you're just going to disagree with that part, I can tolerate it. However, scientists still haven't done much for getting any of the components for life out of a non living thing. I believe they managed to make a few amino acids at some very non-normal conditions, but beyond that, I still see this as a stumbling block.

Do you propose a theory where natural selection and mutation only drives evolution so far?

Modern creationism supports microevolution, i.e. small changes within species. It's hard to deny the facts that small changes can occur, whether it be the shape of a bird's beak or the color of a moths wings, it can happen. What creationism does not support, however, is Evolution with a capital E, macroevolution. The fossil record has some very peculiar gaps in it, with regard to the nice, smooth progression of selection and mutation. What does evolution do to explain the Cambrian explosion, just out of curiosity?

You are welcome to try and make a theory based on his existance - Go ahead. Here, let me start you off:

Aieeeeeeeee! To be successful in this, we need to not forget philosophy and all that comes with it. We can be no more sure of the world around us than of the world we cannot see. Thus, arguing the existance of life based on science is no different than arguing the existance of life based on God. We cannot see that either one exists from an outside point of view.

(please disregard that argument unless you find it compelling, because I think it really really sucks in retrospect)

That is correct, but due to our intelligence and imagination

Woah woah woah! Our imagination makes us think that the fossil record supports evolution? A crushing argument, really. ;-).

OK, lets step away from this particular sceanario for a moment. Here is a situation: We, as rational creatures, observe a behaviour of the universe. We observe three distinct features of that behaviour, that as far as we can see, occur wherever we observe that behaviour - without fail. In our group, we propose two distinct theories to explain that behaviour based on the testable features we have observed. Theory A explains two aspects of three features, and theory B explains all three. Which theory do we move forward with?

And that is called oversimplifying! It's hard to disagree with the fact that "all creatures have a living parent" is something a Creationist has on their side. It's also hard to believe that "some living creatures are very different from others" can be used to support evolution over Creationism. Inductive logic is like stacking leaky buckets. A leaky bucket on it's own is not going to hold water (literally ;-)). But stack three leaky buckets, ten leaky buckets, however many you want, and you're likely to block of most of the holes and leaks. Unfortunatly, like I said, the first to arguments are noncomittal, they don't really support one side more than the other, and the third is far from airtight, we have all kinds of odd things happening in the fossil record, fossils where they shouldn't be, explosions of species, it just isn't really supposed to happen that way.

D.

 

[Ridemonkey]

How long before you guys realize that clapping with one hand doesn't make a sound?

How about this - believe anything you want but keep it to yourself. My problem with religioous folk is not what they believe - but that they try to force feed it to everyone else in society. You want your agenda taught in school? Make your own schools. And why not? Christians have created their own institutions for just about everything in this country.

Until you learn "live and let live", you will be seen as a hostile group by many.

Christian BS divides my family.
Christian con men evangelists have stolen most of my great aunts money.
Christian politics in the workplace makes my moms job a pain in the ass.

And on and on......

There's some Christian bashing for you guys. You shouldn't be complaining about it either, you should be ashamed.

 

[kinghami3]

How long before you guys realize that clapping with one hand doesn't make a sound?

as Bart Simpson so cleverly proved, yes you can make a sound while clapping with one hand, so I guess your argument is pretty much null.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Christian con men evangelists have stolen most of my great aunts money.

I hate to hear that.

Christian politics in the workplace makes my moms job a pain in the ass.

Interesting, do tell.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Interesting, do tell.

Well the Christians like to get together and act all righteous and exclude the heathens from everything. Not exactly great team building.

 

[fluff]

You have something better to do?

I do...

Death occurs more than life in the universe

I doubt it... Pretty much even.

When the first chemical reacted with oxygen and oxidised releasing energy the idea of the lung was created. When the first organism harnessed the oxidation of a chemical in itself or it's surroundings the lung took a huge step forward. When the first protozoa developed a process to make the harvest of this energy more efficient, when this process first occupied a defined space in the organism, when it first pulled in fresh fuel and expelled it burnt waste, the idea of the lung evolved. Through science and understanding many 'unexplanable leaps' have been understood.

Firstly you should know that I am not arguing for Creation, it requires many more leaps of faith than evolution but it pisses me off when people use rubbish arguments even if they are correct (and that by no means is giving you that credit ). The article you posted earlier said 'the fact of evolution' - it is still a theory,

Sod it. I do have better things to do.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Well the Christians like to get together and act all righteous and exclude the heathens from everything. Not exactly great team building.

I'd love to know their "chapter and verse" justification for that behavior.




























I'm not sure there is any........................

 

[kinghami3]

Well the Christians like to get together and act all righteous and exclude the heathens from everything. Not exactly great team building.

What, like church? You're welcome to come to my church any time you want, but don't be offended if it's religious. Personal attacks like that don't work here. It's like saying that all arabs are bad because a few of them flew planes into the WTC. You never hear about the people over there setting up schools and relief work.

 

[Duffle]

Bah. There isn't one.

 

[Ridemonkey]

What, like church? You're welcome to come to my church any time you want, but don't be offended if it's religious. Personal attacks like that don't work here. It's like saying that all arabs are bad because a few of them flew planes into the WTC. You never hear about the people over there setting up schools and relief work.

You should be complaining to all the Christians that are giving you a bad name, not to me.

 

[kinghami3]

I'm not complaining, I'm retorting a fairly vague statement. I'm sorry to hear that Christians can lead to a negative working environment, it's not supposed to be that way and often isn't. It shouldn't be a matter of accepting others, it should be a matter of being equal with others. Jesus didn't surround himself with other religious people, he went straight to the lowest class and treated them as his equals, eating and drinking with them; that's how it should be for all Christians.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm not complaining, I'm retorting a fairly vague statement. I'm sorry to hear that Christians can lead to a negative working environment, it's not supposed to be that way and often isn't. It shouldn't be a matter of accepting others, it should be a matter of being equal with others. Jesus didn't surround himself with other religious people, he went straight to the lowest class and treated them as his equals, eating and drinking with them; that's how it should be for all Christians.

Well said..........

Jesus & the New Testament tell those of us who are followers of Jesus that loving (that word love there is agape = unconditional) others (not just those who are Christians) IS how we love God. So those who claim to be a Christian and yet don't respect others, the Bible says that person is a liar and they don't love God - Jesus takes this so far as to say that when you are disrespectful to a person created in the image of God, you are essentially being disrespectful to God (Matthew 25). Which in light of what Ridemonkey shared with how those Christians were acting, that whole "narrow is the way stuff" Jesus talks about starts to make sense.

 

[Toshi]

a) as Changleen noted the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed SYSTEMS. individual organisms are NOT closed systems therefore the law says squat about them getting more complex.

b) if you actually look at the literature the "missing links" are largely there. see the evolution of whales for instance, where apparently freak ones are still born with a leg or two even to this day...

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html

c) birds did not evolve from bacteria. the common ancestor goes way back. picking ludicrous examples that please your own sensibilities does not strengthen your arguments.

d) how else other than evolution to explain the homology in the DNA of seemingly unrelated creatures? either you posit that there was a creator who used a given template but also cleverly introduced seemingly random errors in direct proportion to the time from which they seemed to diverge from a common ancestor. or you accept evolution. occam's razor clearly points to door 2, and with no supporting evidence for the first scenario there is no reason to think that it is true.

 

[Archslater]

Well said..........

......... So those who claim to be a Christian and yet don't respect others, the Bible says that person is a liar and they don't love God - Jesus takes this so far as to say that when you are disrespectful to a person created in the image of God, you are essentially being disrespectful to God (Matthew 25). ...........

I agree,

I'm a christian, but much of the mainstream religion in this country disgusts me........ not very Jesus-like with all the exclusion, judgement and self -righteousness.

Plus my education and upbringing taught me to see in shades of grey....... not black and white as may christians see.

I don't understand why some think that creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Is it possible that Genesis is a metaphor for evolution over many millions of years? Andyman, I'm curious about your take on this....

 

[Silver]

Interesting that you use order from chaos as part of your scientific argument when the second law of themodynamics postulates the opposite..

As for your nice article posted earlier Duffle has actually pointed out the flaws in the logic. Because B happens after A does not prove a link (it does no deny one either), it only shows a chronological sequence.

Here is one of the problems I have with classical evolutionary theory - given that each complex life form must have a parent (from which it derives its DNA) and in order to have offspring must have a mate (with compatible DNA) where did the first pair of lunged parents spring from? When did sufficient organisms spontaneously become warm-blooded?

The more complex the life-form and the bigger the difference the harder it becomes to believe that mutation works. A bacterium becoming resistant to an antibiotic would be a great example of natural selection (and the antibiotic a great driver toward it) but that is cellular-level change, not complex organism change (a la backbone/womb/extra (functional) stomachs etc.)

Fluff, every single argument you've thrown out here is explained and refuted in that book in the amazon link I gave you on the first page.

 

[Silver]

a) as Changleen noted the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed SYSTEMS. individual organisms are NOT closed systems therefore the law says squat about them getting more complex.

Hell, the earth isn't a closed system either.

People who make that argument must not be able to see the sun or something...

 

[Andyman_1970]

I don't understand why some think that creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Is it possible that Genesis is a metaphor for evolution over many millions of years? Andyman, I'm curious about your take on this....

For me it's not really and issue. I do study the Biblical account (from the Jewish perspective of course) as the foundation of how we as followers of Jesus are to understand God's intention for us and His creation.

I prefer the Hebrew mindset when dealing with this..............it's a mystery and I celebrate that.

 

[fluff]

Fluff, every single argument you've thrown out here is explained and refuted in that book in the amazon link I gave you on the first page.

Give me a chance to buy it, let alone read it!

Anyway, I'm not making arguments, I'm refuting badly constructed ones...!

 

[fluff]

Fluff, every single argument you've thrown out here is explained and refuted in that book in the amazon link I gave you on the first page.

Easy for you to summarise then.

 

[Silver]

Easy for you to summarise then.

Not really. That's why books get written