Rusky

I've got one for you too.

If no supernatural universal Designer exists, how did life(or dna code) originate?

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

tweak50

So you're saying evolution does happen just like in pokemon? Your GED classes have failed you.

__________________

Rusky

Whats pokemon.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

Trigger

Rusky I can 100% prove macro evolution to you.

Are you ready?














Ok do you notice anything similar between all of these animals?


1) 4 appendages
2) 2 eyes
3)1 mouth
4) all eat through their mouths shit out their ass and piss.
5)claws of some kind.

(I'm sure we can find more)

In order to survive on this earth natural selection deems these qualities to be very important to our survival and replication.

Now before you start saying, "Yea well where's the link between us and humans" It's right in front of you. There are no "half man half ape" because these are two "different species". And once there is a "different species" it will not become an already know species because evolution is always progressing.

Humans, apes, and all animals have a common ancestor way back before the dinosaurs existed. I'm talking millions of years before the dinosaurs.

Evolution on a massive scale take millions and millions of years. You will not notice a big difference from the human today and the humans in 5000 years, but their will be subtle differences.

Here's an example:

Why are people from Africa black, people from Europe and Scandinavian countries white, why are Mexicans brown? Why do Asians have slanted eyes?
This is Evofuckinlution happening right in front of us.

Natural selection deemed these qualities that different races or "subspecies" to be possess because the different qualities make it easier for survival in each of these different "subspecies" environments.

Here's how evolution happens

Basically when a small tribe of species A gets separated from the "group" over time (millions of years) they will develop certain traits that nature deems worry of survival. This is why there are different "races" of humans and if each of these races had all been left alone long enough, the would ultimately have become an entirely different species from the original "group"

That's why there are monkey and humans. A loooooooong time ago our ancestors probably the same species (although not in the same form we are now) eventually a small group separated and started developing other traits on their own, while the "group" was also developing their own and now we have 2 different species the ape and the man. (This is a very simplified illustration)


Look we didn't come from mice, monkeys, giraffes, but we all have a COMMON ancestor millions and billions of years ago. We are all somehow related in the very distant past. Which is why we all "resemble" each other to a certain extent, because in our environment "world" there are some basic traits in all animals that help us (collectively) survive here. (Those traits I mentioned at the top)

And if you need any more help understanding here is a great clip.

YouTube - Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Creationism (1/3)

Trigger

Like I said before, we don't know. But using god as a blanket answer is foolish as explained in my post below.

The problem with god is he can't be verified by the scientific method which throws out any scientific argument for god.
And god is just that "Super Natural" meaning he doesn't exist in the natural world.

Watch that video I posted. It will help you understand.

Rusky

I'm not sure how you proved macro evolution by all that. I did read it, but it just hypothesis. If you have a strong solid point please I'll be glad to discuss it.

We can brake it all down just by looking at genetics. You're looking at it, like Darwin did. Simple.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

tweak50

No one can prove macro evolution, that's why it is just a theory. Just like the theory of gravity, it is open to re-writing when new evidence comes into play. Most of everything in the scientific world is theory, there are very few true facts.

That being said, there is tons more research to back the theory of evolution compared to any research proving the existence of a "supernatural universal Designer"

__________________

Trigger

I gave you strong solid evidence of evolution

Where is your strong solid evidence for "intelligent design"... oh wait


*Edit
Your intelligence factor is showing.

Rusky

Well lets start with Louie Pasture. (see his name on your milk or oj)(Pasteurized)
Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Louis demonstrated that the fermentation process is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[5]but rather to biogenesis

So life or code had to come from somewhere, right.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

tweak50

That's some pretty shitastic logic.

By your measure, simply saying that because human females have babies evolution can't exist.

FAIL.

__________________

Trigger

Ok great you're getting there. You're absolutely right life had to come from somewhere.

Now find me some evidence that we came from "god" and then show me where "god" came from

There is more evidence that we came from lighting and amino acids than "God"

Rusky

Apparently Darwin didn't think it was nonsense. So here's a letter from Darwin to Pasteur.

"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Famous quote of Louis Pasteur.
"The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant's wife."

Pasteur is in the 100 most influential people of human history.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

blueRAP

Not very effective. You might as well just have said "Look at that rock, I don't know where it ultimately originated so God must have created it." God is just as empty of an answer as is any other random guess.

Rusky, is God your belief, or your theory? Maybe you just find it unsettling to accept that we don't have an absolute answer to how everything originated.

tweak50

This post makes no sense. First, the letter is addressed to Joseph Hooker, not Pasteur. Your first quoted segment does not support your theory, and the second quoted statement has nothing to do with anything.

__________________

Trigger

Typical Creationist

Rusky

Here the whole thing. So we don't have useless distractions. Click link to verify of what ever you need to do. This is pointless, maybe Pokemon is a better topic.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin and Pasteur

By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." The collapse of spontaneous generation, however, left a vacuum of scientific thought on the question of how life had first arisen.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

riddarhusetgal

Actually this is not the case but you're probably an atheist who pretty strongly believes in evolution so I'll respectfully disagree with you.

For the agnostics/existentialists, what do you think about this (NOTE: This is Marshall's contention below I have CTRL+P):
There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:

1.The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2.The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3.The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4.The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)
5.The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)
6.The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)

---

As for me (riddarhusetgal...) I absolutely believe in evolution. However, after much scientific investigation and reflection, I also believe in intelligent design.

What started me on this path was reading the personal biographies of some of the greatest scientists in the world...

The first thing I came to understand was that the evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive even though the extreme Christian fundamentalist and the extreme atheists would have you believe that...

interesting quotes:

"Einstein would later come close to these sentiments. But at the time, his leap away from faith was a radical one. "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

AND

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Eventually he came to believe something close to what I believe, "

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)


In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

Can you imagine one of the greatest minds in the history of scienc ebeing so humble??


For a long time, I wanted to understand how some of the greatest scientific minds in the world could reconcile their beliefs in science with their spiritual beliefs which often seemed so at odds with each other.

The first thing that I came to understand is related to the nature of "proof" or "evidence". Fundamentalist Christians (or fundamentalists from any religion) teach the importance of having "faith" which to the rationalist means "believing in something for which there is no scientific proof".

But what is proof? When I started reading about these scientists, over and over again they started talking about the supremecy of their own "direct experience" when it comes to some of the greatest discoveries they presented the world with.

But what is "direct experience" other than believing in something for which scienfic proof has yet been presented?

There would have been no theory of relativity had not some of the greatest minds in history realized that traditional logic and rationality forces you to throw out any idea for which science has not yet proven....



An example would be how Einstein discovered the theory of relativity. He had a dream where he was riding on a beam of light. After he told a friend about it, (to paraphrase), the guy was like "let me get this straight, you want to question the past 200 years of scientific proof of newtonian physics -throw it out of the window - because you had a dream that you were riding on a beam of light?! That's not rational or logical dude...."

But he could not deny the reality of his own direct experience. Eventually of course the theories were proven and that experience really changed him, from what his memoirs said.

To sum it up, I came to understand that direct experience is as "much" proof that anyone ever needs. Not the Bible, not the lab. After a series of direct experiences which I could not deny, my beliefs about the nature of man, spirit, evolution, the Bible and intelligent design were satisfied.

Another thing that informed me began when I started studying neuroscience and how on a very fundamental level our pre-existing beliefs shape our reality and what accept as true. To put it succinctly, through the reticular activating system (RAS) our brain filters information that isn't aligned with the current neuro connections and "belief tracks" if you will in the brain. That's why fundamentalist Christians are so strongly tied to their beliefs as are fundamentalist atheists. In a very real sense, the brain/mind is presenting BOTH OF THEM with facts (filtering information to the brain) that is absolutely proof that what they believe is true.

Generally what tends to happen is that only some undeniable personal experience changes the belief of the god-believer into an atheist or an atheist into a god believer....



When I say strongly tied what I mean is that they both actually have "proof" that what they believe is fact on a very literal level. The brain's job is to filter out or emotionally reject anything that doesn't "gel" with what's currently there.


I really thank "god" for the fact that I had well educated parents who encouraged me investigate my beliefs - even in a "god" of sorts. The problem is that people tend to be born into a belief system and most of us are completely unaware of it.

I mean how often does the average person sit back and say to themselves, "Hang on for a second, I am going to church everyday, praying, etc. why do I believe this stuff.....how much of this shit is real and how much of this stuff in the bible is some harry potter style fantasy??"

Similarly, those born into the opposite extreme, how often do they find themselves saying, "hang on a minute, how can I deny the existence of things that science has yet to prove? Many of the things we now accept as true were considered fantasies eons ago...Further, what evidence do I have that the spirit of man does not exist and there is a part of me that cannot be explained by science?"

Just my thoughts guys...to tell you the truth I learned along time ago not to have these kinds of conversations with hard-core Christians or hardcore atheists so it's cool to have some "seekers" in the mix....


Just my thoughts.....

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

xmcp123

reread it

__________________

tweak50

Might want to reread that

__________________

1EightT

Here's the thing. Religious people always balk at science when we can't answer every question from the beginning of time. At least we're trying to find the answers. Instead you guys look up at the sky, don't understand what you see, so you say "god did it". Just because you don't understand the universe, or how a plant converts sunlight into energy, it doesn't follow that "god must have done it". That's an insane and completely illogical argument.

tweak50

I think your confused on some of this.

The current theory of evolution does not support spontaneous generation, no big surprise there. You are 100% correct in thinking that spontaneous generation is a joke, you will never see a fly appear out of thin air.

Your quoted letter fully supports a newer model of the evolution theory. Congratulations on proving nothing.

__________________

Trigger

I can agree with you riddar.

I'm not an atheist, I think that there could be a possibility that something created us, but I know that
whatever it was does not love me, care about me, and in most likely hood is either dead or has forgotten about us, like you forgot about your 5th grade science volcano project which is probably sitting at the bottom of a very large landfill right about now.

I do not know how life "got" here. But the idea that "god" made us and loves us is just as silly to blindly believe as the "aliens created us and are using us a science experiments."


*edit*

Well actually, now that I think about it, there is move proof for my new alien theory really.

Rusky

That was just the start. As I said. I can go on to my next point.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

riddarhusetgal

@Trigger - that's cute!
I can understand why you (and alot of people) feel that way. You know when it comes to this whole idea of "proof" what got me thinking was a couple of things:

1. Someone told me once, "just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there...."

At first I was like "get the hell out of here". Then, I started reading about the human mind alot and how often our senses deceive us. I mean think about it for a second, doesn't it feel like you standing still???

What rational person would believe that the earth is currently spinning at 8oo miles an hour.

It doesn't make fucking sense does it. But it's only because some scientist proved this a relatively short time ago in human history that we believe this.

So then I started reading about exactly how much of life's experience is like this. I mean how many things that seem to real could actually be totally different from what our senses tell us??

An example, in reality what we see "in here" (our mind) is the exact opposite of what things are "out there" as the eyes takes a flipped picture of something, sends electronic signals to the brain which then interprets it.


In reality, we aren't really "seeing" anything, we are using our senses to gather information in the form of light rays, heat rays, etc which is interpreted by the brain.

But what if there are some things "out there" which haven't been picked up by the brain and interpreted. Obviously, since the average person doesn't know that this is how the mind behaves, a "rational" person would conclude it isn't there/doesn't exist.

This is how I feel about alot of the things related to spirituality AND science. What if the "proof" (or lack there of) of a certain thing is there but we aren't looking for it in the right way....

When we see all the pain and suffering in the world, to the average person it seems like there's no god as such and he certainly isn't thinking about us "caring for us", etc., etc.

But what if it's as Einstein and this idea of a "personal God" is not correct. What if it's more "impersonal" as it were. What if this idea of "god" is really a set of universal laws sort of like physics and when you understand them and work in alignment of them they produce good results and when you break them you get screwed.

Sort of how peope thought in cave man times that the shaman who could make fire were really magicians when in reality they just discovered the physics that could produce heat.

What if the stuff they talked about in the bible like walking on water and all the other stuff people consider far out were not "miracles" as such but rather the operation of natural laws which man has yet to discover.

I mean think about it seriously. We don't think twice about man being able to fly. But just a short time ago, to suggest that something without wings could fly was the most irrational, illogical thing one could think of.

How many other things in life to we discount because we haven't yet discovered how they work?


How many other things are actually "real" and "right there" but can't yet pick up on them?

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

Trigger

People that can back shit up don't go around telling people they are about to back shit up.

That's like getting punched in the face and telling the dude who hit you that your gonna hit him back for that.


Let's fucking see it.....

riddarhusetgal

This is one of the most lucid, wise points (IMHO) I've seen written here on WF.

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL POPEYE?!

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

riddarhusetgal

KICK ASS QUESTION. I remember asking my slightly religious science teacher that in junior high/high school.


What makes sense to me is a concept close to that which science defines energy as - something that can neither be:

i) created
ii) destroyed

So if you have something that i) cannot be created and ii) cannot be destroyed....the only thing that makes sense to me is something that "has always been".

Something similar to a circle, with no beginning and no end. Something that "always was, is, and shall be".

Another alternative view is that god/the creator (whatever you wan to call it)...Let's call it "Mr. Big ChrisBa" was something non physical that projected itself onto the world. So "Mr. Big ChrisBa" had the idea of a universe and projected that idea from the nonphysical to the physical, sort of like how you have an idea of a building which is something nonphysical and eventually it becomes something physical - the building.

But what is the "real" building - the idea or the building? If we destroy the building and don't have a blueprint of it, we can never reproduce it. But if he have an idea of that blueprint in our mind, no matter how many times that building gets wiped out, as long as we have the idea of the building close at had (the nonphysical thing), we can reproduce the physical thing.


This is similar to Socrates' theory of correspondence that everything in the physical world has it's origin in an idea.

Just some thoughts - can't claim I came up with them myself unfortunately :P

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

Trigger

Dude don't get me wrong maybe I didn't make myself clear but when I am referring to a "god" I'm talking about the "general judeo-xtian man in the sky keeping tabs on us"

I understand what you are saying, and can agree with you that this idea of "universal laws" could be a possibility. I mean there are physical laws so natural laws in another dimension could exist, then again it could not.

I practice meditation, astral projection, and some other paranormal shit. I believe paranormal shit is completely natural. I don't think there is anything supernatural about it.

I believe in the possibility of a "spirit world" but not in a mythological way.

I believe our human consciousness could possibly be like a radio, and we are tuned into the 3rd dimension right now. I believe with training and practice we can "change the station" to a different dimension of reality much like we do when we dream aka astral projection.

Hell I have actually astral projected before, so I personally know I can experience being outside my body, but whether or not I actually am is a completely different story. I don't know if I am just hallucinating or if my consciousness really did leave my body.

I would like to believe it did, but I have no clue so I'm not going to force this "possibility" down other people's throats demanding them to believe it as fact when there isn't any proof.

And this is why I get so pissed at creationist. They demand I am wrong and try and force me to believe in something because they are blinded by religion and have an agenda behind their "pseudo science"

I guess we probably think along the same lines. I'm not denying the possibility of "a creator" just stating that there isn't any evidence for his existence, at least in the reality we are currently in. As time progresses who knows? I am open to evidence on both sides as long as it doesn't require "Blind faith or asking a magical deity to live in my heart"

turbolapp

Um. We don't pretend to know unlike you supernaturalists that think we all came from a giant fairy.

That's right, I called your god a fairy.

riddarhusetgal

You're projecting your beliefs onto "all" Religious people. Relax. Take a deep breadth. Reflect.
I CERTAINLY don't believe this.
Einstein didn't believe this.
Socrates didn't believe this.

There's a wide continuum of people who question EVERYTHING. The problem is that very few people understand that much of science is based on the process of scientists looking for answers which support their already fully trenched beliefs. There's alot in science which has led to more questions than answers but the "powers that be" don't let it get out in the mainstream.

The masses are just as equally controlled by a blind belief in religion as they are in a blind belief in science. You would be surprised at the stuff that only gets published in the back of scientific journals or stuff that you only have the will to read if you've been smoking an joint or too, lmao...

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

Rusky

I'm done here. You're clearly in unknown waters.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

tweak50

Not to nit pick but, the First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another. We create energy all the time with nuclear physics. I know nuclear reactions are not normal conditions, but it does happen all the time throughout the universe.

__________________

riddarhusetgal

Why are you so emotionally attached and confrontational when it comes to disproving something you don't believe in?


Don't you hate those bible waving 700 Club types who want you to believe the world is only 5,000 years old and there's an old guy in the sky with wings flying around?


Your statement above sounds just as dogmatic as those types.





Can you challenge your mind to just for a second entertain the idea that just because something seems absolutely irrational, unintelligent and stupid/crazy to YOU - it's not necessarily irrational, unintelligent and stupid/crazy PERIOD?

Radical atheism and religious fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin.

I'm not personally attacking you mind you, I'm just asking you to be open minded. Of course open-mindedness might not be something you value and one would have to respect that too....

An open minded man:

"Einstein would later come close to these sentiments. But at the time, his leap away from faith was a radical one. "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."


What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)




No one's questioning your right to believe that God is a fairytale. However, to conclude that that reality is the absolute reality comes dangerously close to mimicking the behavior the the religious fanatics who want everyone to believe in their interpretations of the bible.

The fact that you wanted to close this thread because you think that "God is a fairytale" was a little scary to me - especially since you have no need to concern with something that doesn't exist!

Let those that believe play their fairytale game :P

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

pat J

A lot of "what if's" there. The whole point with modern science is that "what ifs" are STUPID unless they can somehow be hypothesized or proven. EVEN IF a god exist, and jesus is his homeboy, it's still stupid and retarded to believe in one. Believing in the possibility, however, is fine.

Is it possible that we live in a computer generated world controlled by robots (like the matrix)? Yes, yes it is.

Is it stupid to believe that without a single shred of evidence? Yes...... yes it is.

riddarhusetgal

I'd like to hear what you have to say if you don't mind. I'm going on a Wickedfire diet come Wednesday so let us have it :P

Again, I apologize for childishly calling you an "idiot" in another thread

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

emp

@riddarhusetgal

I have proven your logic to be incorrect without resorting to faith.

Now you just argue the same points over and over. You are not even above cutting out the logic reasoning part of my reply.

Please, go back to my last post and dissect the logic, as that is what you wanted to do.

I am not going to discuss faith here, just logic.

Kthnxbye.
::emp::

PS: You are really starting to piss me off. "I just want to talk logic - preachpreachpissawaylogicpreachpreach"

__________________
Get your own Bot army!
Use promo code blindape199

That's because all programmers are also ninjas.(but not all ninjas are programmers) - LogicFlux

Blind Ape Seo

rockhard

I think it is very childish that, instead of admitting that you don't have the answers to certain questions, just make something up.

Religion is so 18th century.

ChrisBa

I'm not sure, but when scientific facts can prove it then I'll start to recognize it

ChrisBa

Bottom line is if people want to believe in whatever that's fine, if people don't want to believe in whatever that's fine as well.. just don't push your beliefs or lack there of onto other people..

there's nothing worse than a religious person trying to push their faith onto everyone else. I'm pretty sure to them that it's just as bad when someone who doesn't believe question their faith.

turbolapp

Hey hey, riddarhusetgal, don't get your panties in a wad just cause I called your god a fairy. Would you prefer, vampire? Zombie? Take your pick.

blueRAP

The problem is that we all know self-delusion causes the problems in this world.

Could you possibly imagine scientists, using scientific methods to figure out things, would just all the sudden, one day stop their progress at some point and just say "You know what? Nevermind all this, I'm pretty sure God did this shit right here."

That's simply not science. Science isn't about giving up and attaching some general, easy explanation to an issue. That's way too simple and doesn't solve or, more importantly, improve anything. Why would a real scientist apply ID as a solution? Does he end there? Does he not explore the causes of this ID? How many other things will he start to apply ID to? When does it stop being science and starts becoming religion?

The problem with creating this mystical ID is that you end up giving it a personality, because after all, it is a conscious being with some sort of agenda right? So after this ID created us, is it done with us? Or is it still hovering right over us, perhaps judging our every actions? Oh shit! Does this ID control what happens to us after we die too?

^ Religion. This ID is a mystical creature, whose personality can only be imagined and assumed based on what traits we humans give it. You can't prove otherwise. You cannot prove that ID is NOT just imagined in the mind. Why? Because EVERY Scientific hypothesis starts in the mind. But ID doesn't solve anything, and often leads to self delusion.

I believe a real scientist is more likely to ultimately conclude that all matter is really energy and that energy is infinite. This would ingulf any ID you can imagine too, as God is an energy, and uses energy. Cause and effect.

lol don't worry, he doesn't believe in god (like that) either. He's just saying it's probably better to "feel an utter humility towards the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," as stated in the Einstein quote he keeps posting (and I see why, everyone keeps missing it).

emp

Invisible friend? Ghost? Man in the moon? Kelpie? Phantasm? Spook? Bogeyman? Chimera? Spirit? Eidolon? ...

::emp::

__________________
Get your own Bot army!
Use promo code blindape199

That's because all programmers are also ninjas.(but not all ninjas are programmers) - LogicFlux

Blind Ape Seo

xmcp123

__________________

turbolapp

Is tinkerbell wearing the toupee?

Trigger

<------------- Bows before the Almighty fairy vampire thing

xmcp123

A jesus toupee. With fangs.
Ok ok. So her hair was lumpy and it was too early in the morning to delete it(I wake up slow). So I blurred. sue me.

__________________