|
|
As a starter I would like to reiterate the madness of your position and add a small thanks for your actually trying to present some evidence. The whole world thinks that radiometric dating is sound apart from a few people who believe that it is not. You have no scientific knowledge. A combination of these two facts makes the logical position for you to fall in line with the accepted view rather than follow the view you find most appealing. It shows great weakness on your part, and a great unwillingness or fear to learn and investigate yourself.
CONSISTENCY OF DATING:
Answers in Genesis
Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed. The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.
The vast age has not been assumed. Your website, the fount of all knowledge, is witholding information.
For example they cite specific mistaken dates and ridicule the explanation scientists give without examining them. When a rock is dated incorrectly it is adjudged to be incorrect because there are hundreds of other dates for such rock which all agree and which are further backed up by evolutionary methods of dating. Your site is willfully ignoring all this to try and convince you. Science isn't about who can argue the best, it is about what is true. They use debating tactics in science! So they say: "Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be"; in order to ridicule the science. But neglect to add that this stance is taken because radiometric dating is such a strong method which has been proven time and time again. It is a bit like saying that when you find out you have put on a stone during a health check, the first thing you should do is suspect the accuracy of the scales.
Talk Origins
As creationists are fond of pointing out, radiometric dating is complicated by geological processes such as metamorphism and weathering, which can interfere with the assumptions that the dating methods use. As creationists do not point out, though, geologists know this. They examine the geological context of where their samples came from to determine whether a technique is likely to be valid, and they experiment with different techniques on different minerals subjected to different conditions to determine which combinations of techniques, minerals, and conditions are valid and which are not. Many so-called discordant dates are results from such experiments dishonestly portrayed as ordinary field measurements.
This is exactly the kind of selective reporting which completely invalidates creation science. I find it hard to believe that Creationists do this on purpose but I find it even harder to believe that they could be so stupid as to not understand the importance of context.
C14 Error explanations:
Talk Origins
New C14 is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, C14 from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" C14 to coal are:
* Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
* Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
* Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.
Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.
Answers in Genesis seems to assume and give out the impression that scientists don't examine mistakes in dating or erroneous results. AiG claim that scientists just dismiss anything which they don't like and AiG
also give off the impression that mistakes aren't usually explained satisfactorily (which they usually are). AiG assumes that if a date is wrong then the whole system must come crumbling too. They never look for good reasons as to why a rock or bone may give a date which contradicts the expected value as predicted from the mountain of self supporting data.
Scientists do look for good reasons and if they can't find one then it would be a huge puzzle and enigma for the scinetific community. A field of great interest. The truth is that explanations are acceptable and reasonable and supported by the facts (ie: a dating arror is put down to high pressure and indeed the area is in an area of high pressure, or an error is found to be possible due to large pockets of helium and indeed this is found to be the case).
HELIUM RETENTION IN ZIRCON:
Answers in Genesis
Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.
There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper1, though technical, can be summarized as follows:
"There must have been a speeded up decay"? That sounds really impartial. Conclusions are usually the result of investigations and not the driving force behind them. Scientists may have a hypothesis (based on something more tangible than a book), but if the investigation doesn't support them then they will scrap the hypothesis. Creationists can't be scientists because no matter what the evidence they will never scrap their hypothesis. They may be correct, but they are not scientists. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, I AM NOT SHOUTING, CAPS IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET THIS CRUCIAL POINT TO STAND OUT!!!
Talk Origins outlines the problem Answers in Genesis has pointed out
Uranium and thorium in zircons produce helium as a by-product of their radioactive decay. This helium seeps out of the the zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age that conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6,000 +/- 2,000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.
Talk Origins debunks the problem Answers in Genesis has pointed out
1. Subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. D. R. Humphreys et al. selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluated in the 1970s for geothermal energy production. The area is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. Excess helium is present in the rocks of the Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994). The helium may have contaminated the gneiss that Humphreys et al. studied. In short, the entire region has had a very complex thermal history. Based on oil industry experience, it is essentially impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.
2. Scientific studies, especially those with radical implications, do not mean much until the results have been replicated by others. Many scientific claims have disappeared entirely when others could not get the same results. Confidence in this particular paper is reduced by certain points:
* Most measurement errors and variabilities are not reported. Therefore, we do not know how accurate the results are.
* Humphreys et al. claimed that they studied zircons and biotites from depths of 750 and 1,490 meters in the Jemez Granodiorite. However, Sasada (1989) showed that at those depths, the samples came from a gneiss, an entirely different rock type.
* Because of math errors, the Q/Q0 values (fraction of helium retained), used by Humphreys et al. to derive their dates, are too high.
* Humphreys et al. (2003) failed properly to total their data in Appendix C, which means that they grossly underestimated the total amount of helium released by their 750-meter-deep zircons. The amount of helium in the zircons greatly exceeds the amount that would be expected from the radioactive decay of uranium over 1.5 billion years. The high helium concentration may be due to samples that were abnormally high in uranium and/or to the presence of excess helium.
* Much is made of the fact that samples five and six retained the same amount of helium, even though the amounts are probably at the limit of what could be measured. The possibility of measurement error accounting for the results is never mentioned.
* If one discounts sample five, which is likely at the limit of measurable precision, the conclusions of Humphreys et al. (2004) rest on just three samples. Such a small data set may be the basis for further research, but not for drawing firm conclusions.
* Humphreys et al. (2003, note 9) referred to correcting "apparent typographical errors" in the raw data, casting suspicion on the validity of all the data.
The helium results could easily be due to an aberrant sample. They could be an artifact of the experimental or collecting method (e.g., defects in the zircons caused by rapid cooling) or from just plain sloppiness. We cannot know for sure until others have looked at the issue, too.
3. Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a "Creation week" or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. (Humphreys recognizes this "heat problem" but is currently unable to provide a solution.)
4. If helium concentrations stay high around the rocks, it is possible for helium to diffuse into voids and fractures in the zircons, or at least high helium pressures could reduce the rate at which helium diffuses out. Either of these scenarios would invalidate the helium diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2003, 2004). Helium concentrations within the earth become high enough for commercial mining. The sample measured by Humphreys et al. came from an area that is probably helium enriched. Helium deposits are common in New Mexico, and excess helium has been found just a few miles from where the sample was taken (Goff and Gardner 1994). To test for the presence of excess helium in their zircons, Humphreys et al. should look for 3He.
5. Uranium does not decay directly to lead; rather, it proceeds through a series of multiple intermediate radioactive elements (Faure 1986, 284-287). It takes about ten half-lives of the longest lived intermediate to achieve secular equilibrium (i.e., each intermediate having the same activity). The uranium decay series contains elements with half-lives well over 10,000 years. If the decay rates changed suddenly, we would not expect the various elements to be in a secular equilibrium. Humphreys et al. should test for this in their zircons. Other uranium ores are at secular equilibrium, indicating a constant decay rate for at least the last two million years.
Creationists accuse scientists of jumping to conclusions which they like. The reverse is true and Creationists probably think this of Scientists because they themselves do it. If I wipe my arse standing up I will probably assume that everyone else does too.
Paul
I think I have mentioned Charles Lyell before, you know the guy who deliberately set out to remove Moses from science, to set up ideas so we wouldn’t have to trust the Bible anymore. I am not saying all scientists do this but the fact is that some presuppositions are made whether deliberately or otherwise.
Just thought I would be thorough and respond to everything you said. Your paragraph seems to be explained by what I was stressing above. Presupposing that something is untrue is exactly how science works. This is a central concept. Nothing is accepted without evidence. So a good scientist would presuppose that Moses had nothing to do with science and that the Bible may or may not be correct and then look at the evidence and see where it leads.
One man's personal convictions should not affect his scientific ideas because they are reviewed by people who won't share his personal views. Just because the evidence happened to show that the Genesis account was wrong doesn't mean he presupposed this. He suspected it was untrue because there was no reason to think it to be true. I imagine of the evidence did support Genesis, then he would have accepted it.
|
|
|
Des, I had a look at the articles you posted but they contain such dodgy reasoning and postulation it is impossible to take them seriously. A lot of creationist websites share these flaws - none of the supposed "scientific" arguments are based on anything more than supposition and blind faith in the bible. I accept that these are your beliefs, but you must see that they cannot be supported by science.
Just for example (this is one I just picked up randomly on google when reading about the ark):
Quote
How could Noah's family take care of all those animals?
...a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.
Where is the evidence for this? This is just complete hypothesizing, presented as fact, and does not provide any sort of answer. There are hundreds of these pseudo-scientific answers found around creationist websites. I am fine with presenting these as beliefs, but trying to justify them with this attempted science just won't work. Especially when, as some sites I have looked at are, they are targetted at kids.
Each "answer" that I have read on creationist websites has just raised more questions. Unfortunately, a lot of these sites start from the viewpoint that the bible is absolute truth, and that god exists and is all-powerful. Whilst these are obviously the tenets of your religion, it is impossible to use arguments based on them to convince a skeptic.
The problem with trying to justify creationism scientifically is that so much has to be postulated, and is often left unsupported. Often the pre-flood world is described as being totally different in terms of climate, geology, and so forth, in order to explain post-flood phenomena (i.e. how freshwater fish survived in the flood-era oceans). Obviously this is flawed logic - you can't expect it to convince anyone with half a brain.
|
|
|
Atheist....
25.10.2003 - Gasometer, Vienna, Austria
17.8.2006 - Frequency Festival, Salzburg, Austria
8.12.2006 - Stadthalle Wien, Vienna, Austria
my Muse youtube covers
|
|
|
thats the point we can't argue these points because you cannot prove god doesn't exist, because according believers you only find his existance if you belive in him and that he created everything, so to non believers appart from a few coincidences and strange happenings(which are described as somehting we don't know about yet) everything can be explained by scienece
and science is true, and im a christian i still belive this. this is because god created science,so the whole arguement just cant work, people basing their arguement on something the other side says is a load of bullshit means nobody can prove the other wrong
sciece says 1 thing, christians say the other, i say God created that science to work like that.
I believe in God and everything about him, but i think athiests and christians are being stupid here, we cant argue this can we?!
and hey i just re-read what i wrote and it makes no sense wahey!:-P
lyrics - just wasted time between solos!
Meow mix
|
|
|
I am not arguing against science (not that Kashmir will believe me) merely the interpretation of evidence and I will not accept something just because the majority do if it goes against God’s Word, which I believe to be 100% true.
We can discuss these things but we have totally differing world views to the non-Christians on here and so we would expect wildly differing views.
 Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
I am not arguing against science (not that Kashmir will believe me) merely the interpretation of evidence and I will not accept something just because the majority do if it goes against God’s Word, which I believe to be 100% true.
You're arguing against science - the positivist experimental methodology. That is arguing against science. You seem not to understand what science is. You should've learned this during your A levels.
|
|
|
Erm what makes you think I did A-levels in science?
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
Erm what makes you think I did A-levels in science?
You're arguing against it. Surely, to argue against something you must understand it - otherwise it would be an argument from ignorance.
|
|
|
Firstly thanks for your thorough response. Insightful, specific, simply marvellous. It was everything I had hoped for.
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
Erm what makes you think I did A-levels in science?
And yet you're such an expert, or at least adept enough to choose who to trust!
Quote
I am not arguing against science (not that Kashmir will believe me) merely the interpretation of evidence and I will not accept something just because the majority do if it goes against God’s Word, which I believe to be 100% true.
We can discuss these things but we have totally differing world views to the non-Christians on here and so we would expect wildly differing views.
I am going to try to explain this once more. If you think that science is a matter of interpretation then we have a differing understanding of science. In this sense you are arguing against science because you are arguing for a different definition of science than that accepted by scientists. It is a very subversive and brilliantly religious line of argument.
In your view it is scientific to accept any interpretation of evidence which is possible. Science is not about possible explanations but the simplest and most likely ones. Ones which can be infered directly from the evidence. Creationism is about postulating possibilities, like postulating that decay rates may have been different. Science only goes on what is the most sensible conclusion.
If decay rates are constant now and seemingly unaffected by any tests we apply then it is scienfific to assume that they were constant. Creationism says that we don't know for sure that they are constant (although it is highly probable), and therefore it is scientific to assume that they were different in the past in order to fit in with your worldview.
I am really sorry if this hurts you but creationism has never shown me any kind of scientific thought. Show me some scientific thought? That is if you understand what scientific thought is!
NB: I showed you why the whole Helium argument against an old earth is unscientific and yet you don't appear to have responded...
|
|
|
Well I guess that’s it then on the creation/evolution discussion, I’m not qualified or rational enough to discuss it so I guess it is back to Christianity then.
It does not stop me from believing the Bible is the inerrant Word of God though.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
belief is something very powerful. whether or not the words of god are written in the bible is something we never will know.
is believing that a god exists, a he passed his message through the bible a bad thing?? if that makes a person pray, help neighbors and gives charity is that a bad thing???
all i need is the air i breath and place to rest my head
|
|
|
Quote
hsc :
belief is something very powerful. whether or not the words of god are written in the bible is something we never will know.
is believing that a god exists, a he passed his message through the bible a bad thing?? if that makes a person pray, help neighbors and gives charity is that a bad thing???
If they attack, or spread misinformation about, science, then yes.
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
Well I guess that’s it then on the creation/evolution discussion, I’m not qualified or rational enough to discuss it so I guess it is back to Christianity then.
It does not stop me from believing the Bible is the inerrant Word of God though.
Again I thank you for your response to my post. Please note the sarcasm. I am not saying you are incapable of understanding the concepts. I am saying you are subconsciously refusing to do so because you are afraid of having to confront the fact that your views on natural History may be incompatible with a rational approach.
As a Christian I should have thought you could recognise what reaching out to help people looks like. You have people here who know more than you (I am not refering to myself, but Jomo, Tene, Laura...), and yet you refuse to enter into a dialogue.
If you are content with shutting yourself off to the information for fear of having to confront a dilemma between evidence and your faith then that is fine. I just think you should admit that this is what you are doing. If your faith is strong you should really make every effort to challenge it by understanding evolution and science rather than just trusting the people who are saying the things you want to hear.
PS: I don't care if you believe nonsense (in my opinion and the opinion of science). I care deeply if you advocate teaching nonsense in schools, which you do! You may even donate money to a foundation pushing for creationism (ID) being taught in schools. You support these ideas without even understanding them, this is the greatest sin of our age. In a time when information is openly available, ignorance is inexcusable (and acting upon opinions ignorant of the facts). The only nonsense in schools should be Alice in Wonderland.
Also, can you honestly not see how you very rarely respond to what I actually say?
|
|
|
Quote
Tene :
Quote
hsc :
belief is something very powerful. whether or not the words of god are written in the bible is something we never will know.
is believing that a god exists, a he passed his message through the bible a bad thing?? if that makes a person pray, help neighbors and gives charity is that a bad thing???
If they attack, or spread misinformation about, science, then yes.
spread information isn't harmfull, just annoying. but attacking and that nonesense is done by the minority
all i need is the air i breath and place to rest my head
|
|
|
Spreading misinformation is extremely harmful. It leads people discredit important and valid information and manipulates them into making uninformed decisions.
|
|
|
Quote
~screenager~ :
Spreading misinformation is extremely harmful. It leads people discredit important and valid information and manipulates them into making uninformed decisions.
Precisely, especially in an age when information is readily available. In the past if people wanted to talk about issues they probably didn't have access to the relevant info. Speculation and misinformation used to be inevitable, these days it is almost inexcusable.
Paul, please actually respond to some of the things I and others have said. A response should hopefully consist of a some words you wrote which correspond directly to some other words which I wrote. Or it could be an answer to a specific question or a counter argument. Changing the subject although technically a response of sorts is utterly pointless, our discussion becomes and interview. I can't believe it has come to this...
If you need more than one post to treat everything clearly then please write your second one and save it in word, then post it after someone else writes another post (there is a lot to respond to and take in). I can't believe it has come to this...
|
|
|
as i said its something we cannot argue about i doubt you(kashmir) have had the expirience of meeting with God, its amazing something different and u just believe its right, and you know someone who can do that can do anything (create world), and if so they can create science, so you(kashmir) are imo right, everything scientific is correct(with a few exceptions of evelution and stuff) but i think God made it to work that way and designed it to work that way i dont understand what ur both on about, but u are becoming way 2 cocky and just need 2 start getting reasonable u both dont wana admit u agree or nethik
and yet again im talking shit
lyrics - just wasted time between solos!
Meow mix
|
|
|
Quote
rock100 :
as i said its something we cannot argue about i doubt you(kashmir) have had the expirience of meeting with God, its amazing something different and u just believe its right, and you know someone who can do that can do anything (create world), and if so they can create science, so you(kashmir) are imo right, everything scientific is correct(with a few exceptions of evelution and stuff) but i think God made it to work that way and designed it to work that way i dont understand what ur both on about, but u are becoming way 2 cocky and just need 2 start getting reasonable u both dont wana admit u agree or nethik
and yet again im talking shit
I am more interested in the points people disagree over and why they disgaree over them. I am interested in understanding why they disagree and if their arguments are unconvincing then I am interested in pointing out why they are ill conceived. I don't think I am being cocky at all, I am demanding a response from a person who refuses to do so. This wouldn't be a problem if he weren't a supporter (in principle) of subverting the science curriculum and of making laws based on his personal beliefs. This isn't a battle, it is a conversation.
What is your experience of meeting with god? What are the exceptions of evolution you think are incorrect?
|
|
|
Right I am obviously not at a level of “understanding” the evidence against certain old age arguments and therefore not qualified/capable of discussing them and I have come to realise that I am not going to learn anything from a forum as there are too many opinions flying around and it is very easy to get sidetracked.
I am going to continue researching into these areas in order to gain a better understanding of all the different ideas etc so that I am in a better position to present my ideas in any future discussions. I am not, however, scared of “evidence” contradicting my faith because there are basically so many things that go against my beliefs in the world today that I accept I am in the minority at the moment.
Also thanks Kashmir for advising me how to right a response I’ll be sure to take it on board and I hope in writing this response (although maybe not directly) I hope I have responded to your points.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
OK cool. I hope you do investigate honestly and aren't afraid of understanding things you would prefer not to. Please don't go out with this fire in your heart to prove that everything you believe is correct, that would be a shame. I really fear that you are just going to go off and read more creationist sources to try and insulate yourself better against the truth.
I am still very confused as to why you refuse to use the opportunity to ask the people here. I wasn't telling you to put up or shut up, I was telling you to ask questions and investigate or shut up. I don't see why you can't ask people like Laura or jomo87? I have been pleading with you to do so but you really seemed not to want to continue the discourse when they tried to answer your questions.
You posted some articles from AiG and I took the time to show you why their points weren't as good as you took them to be. Then you didn't even bother responding to my post. I just don't get why you did that? Perhaps you felt it was a personal attack or something, but it was just an honest and specific response to the articles you posted. I have been told that Christians often feel under personal attack when people try to have an evidence based discussion. I hope you don't feel this way because we are talking about your beliefs and not you. Christians feel personally assaulted because they have placed their entire concept of self in what they believe. This is why it hurts them and they shy away when people try and show how their beliefs contradict the evidence.
Paul
Right I am obviously not at a level of “understanding” the evidence against certain old age arguments and therefore not qualified/capable of discussing them and I have come to realise that I am not going to learn anything from a forum as there are too many opinions flying around and it is very easy to get sidetracked.
I've said this all above, but I don't understand why you won't learn anything here. If you are willing to stay on topic then so is everyone else. Seriously, look back and you should see that usually jomo, Laura and I stay on topic. It is you who decides to move to another issue when the one in question is becoming interesting. Jomo even started an entire thread dedicated to your problems with the age of the earth! He invited questions and promised to try to answer them if he had the time!
If you have a specific issue then we can spend as long as you want on it, you just have to promise to remain focused!
Again you posted two articles and I stayed on topic and responded to them. I didn't start talking about other issues which concern me more. Yet you never even acknoledged my reply. Look at the effort I put in, and look at how you just ignored it, it hurts! I am really confused and concerned by your actions...
|
|
|
I probably will be reading more creationist material but I will also try and look at the other side as well but we all look at things with our own ideas in mind, if we like it or it agrees with what we already think then we are likely to adopt it but if it goes against what we “believe” then we are more likely to discard it.
I have found that being one person trying to discuss one item on this forum to be hard to do, you may be able to keep on your line of discussion but you don’t have lots of other people throwing other questions or ideas in as well. If it stayed as a one on one that may be easier but other people throw in their ideas and the discussion goes of at wild tangents and there are things that I feel are more important to discuss at the moment.
After all the main idea and focus for me should be telling people of their need (according to what I believe to be true) for Jesus in their lives.
I didn’t respond to your rebuttals because as I said I don’t have a full enough grasp of certain concepts yet so I don’t have anything further to add. I have been personally “attacked” on here as you well know so forgive me if I take things in that way but it isn’t because I am super-sensitive or whatever.
I am sorry if it hurts you for me not to respond but I have outlined my reasons above although I am not sure why you are concerned by my actions.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
I am concerned that you say you want to understand but refuse to talk to people who are willing to explain. I don't see how you are going to be able to investigate if this is the attitude you take to things you don't understand straight away. If you don't get something then jomo was perfectly willing to explain and expand.
You say it is hard to discuss when you are one and we are many. In fact I have observed that you are most often the one who takes the discussion off on tangents. You could easily ignore other issues and just stay on topic, I really feel you don't want to do this and don't want to understand. Ask questions!
"I didn’t respond to your rebuttals because as I said I don’t have a full enough grasp of certain concepts yet so I don’t have anything further to add." - If you specify what concepts you have problems with then maybe someone could explain. If you don't ask then I don't see how you are ever going to understand?
"I have been personally “attacked” on here as you well know so forgive me if I take things in that way but it isn’t because I am super-sensitive or whatever." - I hope you come to realise that no one is trying to attack you, we are attacking your beliefs and talking about them. This is exactly what I am talking about, you are so heavily invested in your beliefs that it injures you when people try to dispute them.
Basically, I really want to explain things if I can and you don't seem to be letting me.
|
|
|
am i christian? maybe yes... 
my special moments:
muse gig - 8/06/2010 milano
muse gig - 16/07/2007 verona
muse gig - 2/12/2006 bologna
muse gig - 27/10/2003 milano
Myspace / My Youtube Channel
|
|
|
What do you believe in Giulia?
I'll get back to you Kashmir.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
What do you believe in Giulia?
I'll get back to you Kashmir.
uhm...God?
my special moments:
muse gig - 8/06/2010 milano
muse gig - 16/07/2007 verona
muse gig - 2/12/2006 bologna
muse gig - 27/10/2003 milano
Myspace / My Youtube Channel
|
