 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: C vs E: Age of the Earth Peanut Gallery |
 |
|
This would be the place for any discussion about the one on one debate going on.
I personally request that the two participants in this debate not participate in this thread.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: That's not a debate. |
|
|
P1 is putting forth valid researched arguments and Pryssie is ignoring them.
For example: Emphasis mine
| P1 wrote: | Quote:
Continental drift most certainly IS scientific. It's BEEN OBSERVED. Scientists routinely look at markers on continental plates before and after seismic events and can measure exactly how far the plates have moved. Denying continental drift is about as reasonable as denying that the Earth is round. |
Then Prysie responds:
| Prysie wrote: |
Stop saying it IS science, science should be based on observation, logic and most of all common sense, you ignore all 3. |
I don't think he(?) is responding to the same posts I am reading.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome thread idea!
First comment:
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: | | If light consists of different colours and something absorbs the light and reflects other light which gives the object it`s colour, then a red object must appear black when anything but red light is shun on it, yet it does not. |
A red object does appear black when there is no red in the light being shone on it. When you go deep enough underwater in a submarine, red is the first colour in the spectrum of sunlight to be completely filtered out by the water, and red things do indeed appear to be black in that situation. As you go deeper, more of the spectrum ends up being filtered out. I've seen this first-hand - it's really neat.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
No movement?
and then
| Quote: | | What is currently happening is no proof for what once happened. Currently Zimbabwe has an inflations rate of 5000% this was not always the case, yes they are moving apart, but that does not proof they did move apart. |
Movement?
The inflations thing is a bit strange, what does inflation rate changes have to do with things like Gravity. That’s what he is saying here, Just because when you throw something into the air now and it falls back down doesn't mean that it always did. What kind of logic is that?
PH please think a little before you reply! Give rational reasons to why the earth could be only x years old. I don't see how you could win the debate at the rate you are going. (not that wining a debate changes the truth)
| Quote: | | I can use Scientific arguments, but I’m going to try and show you I`m right using common sense! |
Please start using one or the other scientific arguments or common sense!
I don't mean to be hating on you PH but you really need some constructive criticism.
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: Re: C vs E: Age of the Earth Peanut Gallery |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | This would be the place for any discussion about the one on one debate going on.
I personally request that the two participants in this debate not participate in this thread. |
That is a cowardly way of thinking, So I may not defend myself? But I`ll respect your reqeust.
:::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You'll have plenty of time should the actual debate end.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PrysDie Heer's post from today is completely vacuous. I'm disappointed in the sheer amount of rhetoric, especially in contrast to the fact that it is devoid of any scientific discussion whatsoever. It's really very poor style, and totally ineffective persuasively (unless he's reaching some sort of mentally strangled audience).
I hope that his next post has some sort of content to talk about - most of his posts so far have been aimed at attacking P's evidence rather than providing any evidence to support his own claim. Even if he does somehow manage to refute all of P's evidence, he still has a long way to go in showing that the Earth really is only 6000 years old.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Negative Overload
Goldfish
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prys continues to post nothing but rhetoric and claims with no backing to them. No content to consider, no research to look over, just his opinions.
And some subtle and not-so-subtle insults.
Topped off with a semi-rant that goes completely off-topic into the realm of conspiracy theory, and the invocation of Godwin's Law, to boot.
If I could whistle I'd be doing so at the sheer chutzpah of his last post.
--------------------------
I really need to learn how to do that someday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don`t think P1234567890 is going to come back to finish the debate.
| Negative Overload wrote: | Prys continues to post nothing but rhetoric and claims with no backing to them. No content to consider, no research to look over, just his opinions.
And some subtle and not-so-subtle insults.
Topped off with a semi-rant that goes completely off-topic into the realm of conspiracy theory, and the invocation of Godwin's Law, to boot. |
Hmmmm lets see I have refuted every one of his claims, answered every one of his questions, and I was able to stand by my claims without ever having to back off.
He has still not been able to answer most of my questions. He is the one who started the insults, the result of not being able to make a proper reply, and all of his arguments have been toasted.
I would say my arguments are stronger.
| Ana wrote: | PrysDie Heer's post from today is completely vacuous. I'm disappointed in the sheer amount of rhetoric, especially in contrast to the fact that it is devoid of any scientific discussion whatsoever. It's really very poor style, and totally ineffective persuasively (unless he's reaching some sort of mentally strangled audience).
I hope that his next post has some sort of content to talk about - most of his posts so far have been aimed at attacking P's evidence rather than providing any evidence to support his own claim. Even if he does somehow manage to refute all of P's evidence, he still has a long way to go in showing that the Earth really is only 6000 years old. |
Well Ana, by the looks of it you must agree that no-one is able to give any evidence of an old earth, thus it is but a religion, not a scientific fact, which is the point I was trying to make.
So Evolution is just as much of a religion as Creation, or even more.
It is up to you what you believe, but what is the point in believing the earth is old?
| Quote: | Movement?
The inflations thing is a bit strange, what does inflation rate changes have to do with things like Gravity. That’s what he is saying here, just because when you throw something into the air now and it falls back down doesn't mean that it always did. What kind of logic is that? |
Hmmmmmmmm.
It is perfect logic to think something had a beginning; to tell you the truth it is very dumb to think the opposite.
| Ana wrote: | | A red object does appear black when there is no red in the light being shone on it. When you go deep enough underwater in a submarine, red is the first colour in the spectrum of sunlight to be completely filtered out by the water, and red things do indeed appear to be black in that situation. As you go deeper, more of the spectrum ends up being filtered out. I've seen this first-hand - it's really neat. |
Are you sure? Last time I shined a red light on a blue object it appeared red.
| Bouncer wrote: | | P1 is putting forth valid researched arguments and Pryssie is ignoring them. |
Can you please show me one thing I ignored?
| Bouncer wrote: | | I don't think he(?) is responding to the same posts I am reading. |
It is not Continental drift that is observed. Continental Drift is a misleading term used to propagate a believe, the reason for this is because they want to take people away from God , another example of a misleading term is micro-evolution.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The way I see it there was not one post on this thread supporting me, good thing you did not bet any money, because you would be very poor by now.
It reminds me of Isj 29:1 -5. Which God gave me saying, this is how your life will be.
Regardless, since P1234567890 failed to defeat the YECs. Would any one of you like to continue the siege?
I can guarantee you will fail just as he did.
P1234567890 was also not able to defend his position, clear proof that YEC is stronger than OEC or OEE.
Evolution does not stand a chance!!! Evil laugh!!!!!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Negative Overload
Goldfish
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hmmmm lets see I have refuted every one of his claims, answered every one of his questions, and I was able to stand by my claims without ever having to back off. |
1. You didn't refute anything. Your ideal of rebuttal is to say whatever's in your head, without bothering to back it up with established fact. You'd think a position so strong would have lots of evidence to back it up...apparently not?...
2. He asked you to cite your position with scientific papers and other reliable sources. You did not. So no, you didn't answer everything.
2. Of course you never back down. You're too stubborn (some might say egotistical) to admit that maybe, just maybe, you don't know everything and that you just might be wrong about something. That's not really a surprise.
Isn't there a line about "pride going before a fall" in the Bible somewhere?...
| Quote: | | He has still not been able to answer most of my questions. He is the one who started the insults, the result of not being able to make a proper reply, and all of his arguments have been toasted. |
1. Most of your questions didn't address the issue of the thread. You constantly tried to drag the debate into other areas, and in fact did so in your very first post. He had no duty to answer non-related questions.
2. I don't care who started the insults (although the first insult I saw was "How illogic do you think, must I draw pictures?" which was from you), you should've turned the other cheek.
3. You toasted not a single thing, save perhaps your own credibility, with your inability to properly refute anything he brought up just once.
| Quote: | | I would say my arguments are stronger. |
Of course you would. You lack objectivity.
You were properly trounced, and hopefully you'll keep your word should the decision go against you. Which, by all standards of debate and logic, it should.
And I'm not a betting man, so of course I didn't bet.
If I were, though, I'd be buying P123 something nice, to thank him for helping me win all that cash by running circles around you.
------------------
P.S. Apparently you've never shone a red light on a blue object in your life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Ana wrote: | PrysDie Heer's post from today is completely vacuous. I'm disappointed in the sheer amount of rhetoric, especially in contrast to the fact that it is devoid of any scientific discussion whatsoever. It's really very poor style, and totally ineffective persuasively (unless he's reaching some sort of mentally strangled audience).
I hope that his next post has some sort of content to talk about - most of his posts so far have been aimed at attacking P's evidence rather than providing any evidence to support his own claim. Even if he does somehow manage to refute all of P's evidence, he still has a long way to go in showing that the Earth really is only 6000 years old. |
Well Ana, by the looks of it you must agree that no-one is able to give any evidence of an old earth, thus it is but a religion, not a scientific fact, which is the point I was trying to make.
So Evolution is just as much of a religion as Creation, or even more.
It is up to you what you believe, but what is the point in believing the earth is old? |
Actually, Prys, I didn't say anything like that there is no evidence that Earth is older than you say. P has given you lots of evidence.
What I said was that even if you somehow managed to refute all of his evidence, you still have a long way to go to prove your point. You need to give evidence supporting your assertion rather than just shooting down what your opponent has to say. That's what my entire point was there.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Ana wrote: | | A red object does appear black when there is no red in the light being shone on it. When you go deep enough underwater in a submarine, red is the first colour in the spectrum of sunlight to be completely filtered out by the water, and red things do indeed appear to be black in that situation. As you go deeper, more of the spectrum ends up being filtered out. I've seen this first-hand - it's really neat. |
Are you sure? Last time I shined a red light on a blue object it appeared red. |
Yes, I'm quite sure. I've seen it twice that way (via submarine) with my own eyes. It also makes perfect sense as to why it should appear that way - if there's no red light, then how can my eye see red?
As for what you say, it hardly surprises me that you see only what you want to see.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Negative overlord:
| Quote: | | 1. You didn't refute anything. Your ideal of rebuttal is to say whatever in your head, without bothering to back it up with established fact. You'd think a position so strong would have lots of evidence to back it up...apparently not?... |
Hmmmm lets see:
P1234567890 had 3 arguments:
1.Pangaea.
2.Radiocoligal dating.
3.Starlight.
Pangeae is a lot of nonsense and impossible, as I have shown, If you read the debate again you will see it.
Radiological dating is based on assumptions and can not be proven.
Starlight is no proof of an old earth unless you make a few assumptions.
| Quote: | | 2. He asked you to cite your position with scientific papers and other reliable sources. You did not. So no, you didn't answer everything. |
Actual I did answer to that:
I Said:
| Quote: | | What is the point of a scientific debate if both proponent and Opponent have scientific papers. I`m arguing against the papers saying the earth is old. Logic shows that. I mean there is no Scientific Paper proving you are a human I`m debating and not a computer, YET LOGIC SHOW YOU ARE>><><><><><><> |
You want me to give scientific papers showing scientific papers are stupid, now isn`t that stupid?
But let me reason the same way as you for a moment>
God Exists until a christian says He does not. This is logical Impossible. As soon as a christian would say God does not Exist, he is not Christian any more. The same is true with Your Hypothesis, You are not allowed to be called a scientist if you do not believe in evolution.
It is a highly defended state-Religion.
You are arguing evolution is fact because scientists says so, and scientists say so because it is fact. That is called circular reasoning.
| Quote: | | 2. Of course you never back down. You're too stubborn (some might say egotistical) to admit that maybe, just maybe, you don't know everything and that you just might be wrong about something. That's not really a surprise |
Believe it or not I too once believed the earth was millions of years old and everything evolved, but then I started reading my Bible and saw the truth.
God does know everything. If you say something contradicting His word, YOU ARE WRONG. I have no need to back down, God is on my side.
| Quote: | | Isn't there a line about "pride going before a fall" in the Bible somewhere?... |
Yes, and that is why P1234567890 fell.
| Quote: | | 1. Most of your questions didn't address the issue of the thread. You constantly tried to drag the debate into other areas, and in fact did so in your very first post. He had no duty to answer non-related questions. |
Firstly ALL my questions was on topic, unless otherwise stated.
Secondly He did not even answer to questions that was clearly on Topic.
In my first post I started the debate with a introduction, like all debates should start.
| Quote: | | 2. I don't care who started the insults (although the first insult I saw was "How illogic do you think, must I draw pictures?" which was from you), you should've turned the other cheek. |
"How illogic do you think, must I draw pictures" was not an insult, it is called - - Discrediting an opposing argument. It was aimed in a Plural sense to discredit his argument.
The same is true with the rest of the "insults" I was not insulting him, but his arguments.
| Quote: | | 3. You toasted not a single thing, save perhaps your own credibility, with your inability to properly refute anything he brought up just once |
Please name one that was able to stand.
| Quote: | | Of course you would. You lack objectivity. |
This comment gets echoed right back at you.
| Quote: | | You were properly trounced, and hopefully you'll keep your word should the decision go against you. Which, by all standards of debate and logic, it should. |
He was the one only willing to listen to scientific papers, I was the one trying to persuade him to listen to LOGIC.
| Quote: | And I'm not a betting man, so of course I didn't bet.
If I were, though, I'd be buying P123 something nice, to thank him for helping me win all that cash by running circles around you. |
Last time I checked I won that debate.
| Quote: |
P.S. Apparently you've never shone a red light on a blue object in your life. |
Of course I did, the question is: Have you?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ana
| Quote: | | Actually, Prys, I didn't say anything like that there is no evidence that Earth is older than you say. P has given you lots of evidence. |
We`re talking past each other.
My statement is this, There is no evidence for an old earth, why believe it?
P1234567890 did not give any valid proof of an old earth.
He did, however give some statements claiming it to be proof of an old earth. Some stronger than other, but it has all failed the test of scientific method, It lacked Logic.
It was weighed, but found to be too light. If you know what I mean.
| Quote: | | What I said was that even if you somehow managed to refute all of his evidence, you still have a long way to go to prove your point. You need to give evidence supporting your assertion rather than just shooting down what your opponent has to say. That's what my entire point was there. |
Well I did refute all of his evidence thus it is not a fact that the earth is old, only a religion. So it is a matter of what you believe, why believe the earth is old? The bible states otherwise.
But since I love you: I will be more than glad to show you some scientific arguments of an old earth, not to talk about the biblical ones.
| Quote: | | Yes, I'm quite sure. I've seen it twice that way (via submarine) with my own eyes. It also makes perfect sense as to why it should appear that way - if there's no red light, then how can my eye see red? |
I don`t think we are talking about the same thing here, I do not doubt for a second the existence of the light spectrum, only the reflect- Absorb theory.
| Quote: | | As for what you say, it hardly surprises me that you see only what you want to see. |
So my believes effects my eyes? I physically see red light shining on a blue object and then see the blue object either appearing red or blue, not black as theory would say.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I`m going to make requests here, please acknowledge:
Read the debate again and look at it with a nutral eye.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hope this helps.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Negative Overload
Goldfish
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Pangeae is a lot of nonsense and impossible, as I have shown, If you read the debate again you will see it. |
Already read it. Twice. And no, you did not.
| Quote: | Actual I did answer to that:
I Said:
Quote:
What is the point of a scientific debate if both proponent and Opponent have scientific papers. I`m arguing against the papers saying the earth is old. Logic shows that. I mean there is no Scientific Paper proving you are a human I`m debating and not a computer, YET LOGIC SHOW YOU ARE>><><><><><><>
You want me to give scientific papers showing scientific papers are stupid, now isn`t that stupid? |
Nice try, but no dice. You copped out and didn't even try to answer it the way he asked you to.
If your position is based in scientific reasoning, there should be papers supporting it.
If you aren't able to support your position in a scientific debate with scientific research, then you've already lost before you've begun.
| Quote: | | You are arguing evolution is fact because scientists says so, and scientists say so because it is fact. That is called circular reasoning. |
The irony of you claiming someone else is using a circular argument is rich.
But just to pop this particular bubble, I don't believe evolution is fact simply because scientists say so. Having looked at the possible explanations for myself, and thought about them, I think it is the most likely to be true.
| Quote: | | Believe it or not I too once believed the earth was millions of years old and everything evolved, but then I started reading my Bible and saw the truth. |
Yeah, and my experience is the exact opposite. We each had opposite experiences. Now what?
| Quote: | | God does know everything. |
How do you know this? (If you say "Because the Bible, which is the Word of God, says so," you'll be using a circular argument and we wouldn't want that, would we?)
| Quote: | | If you say something contradicting His word, YOU ARE WRONG. |
What a convenient excuse to ignore everything you disagree with.
Can you show me where saying the Earth's old or that evolution was responsible for life's development goes against God's Word? I don't recall seeing anything about the age of the Earth or how God made all the critters and what-not...
| Quote: | | I have no need to back down, God is on my side. |
Why? I'm pretty certain that simply being Christian isn't enough to ensure his approval of all you say and do...
| Quote: | | Yes, and that is why P1234567890 fell. |
Seriously, do you even stop and consider the massive amounts of irony you spew? I can only assume you're completely unaware of it.
Who's the one claiming to know the mind of God? It's not P123. (And, no, he didn't fall at all. You did, though. A lot.)
| Quote: | Quote:
1. Most of your questions didn't address the issue of the thread. You constantly tried to drag the debate into other areas, and in fact did so in your very first post. He had no duty to answer non-related questions.
Firstly ALL my questions was on topic, unless otherwise stated. |
Well, there you go. You just proved my point. Thanks!
| Quote: | | Secondly He did not even answer to questions that was clearly on Topic. |
False.
| Quote: | | Please name one that was able to stand. |
All of them. You didn't manage to overcome any of his points. You failed at this completely.
| Quote: | | This comment gets echoed right back at you. |
Again, a false statement.
I went into the debate with an open mind. I honestly hoped you would be able to provide a good, logical, sound argument for your points, and perhaps give me some new things to think about.
You did not.
You, by all objective standards, did not provide a good, logical argument. You did not provide good evidence. You constantly went all over the map with your points, refusing to stick to the one that was the subject of the debate. But you're not able to admit this, and I wonder if you ever will be.
| Quote: | | He was the one only willing to listen to scientific papers, I was the one trying to persuade him to listen to LOGIC. |
Then why didn't you use any? You claiming what you said to be logic doesn't make it so. That's....*gasp!*....another circular argument!
| Quote: | | Last time I checked I won that debate. |
Check again.
| Quote: | | Of course I did, the question is: Have you? |
I wouldn't have asked you if you had done so, if I hadn't before. In fact, I did it again just before I wrote that, to make sure.
I can't believe you're so set in your ignorance that you can't go out, shine a red light on a pair of blue jeans, and see for yourself.
Truly amazing.
| Quote: | I`m going to make requests here, please acknowledge:
Read the debate again and look at it with a nutral eye. |
IRONY OVERLOAD!!!
You might take your own advice, methinks. Just might open your eyes, if you tried it just once...
-----------------------
*wonders if this is going to be the biggest circular argument of them all* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Negative Overload wrote: | | Seriously, do you even stop and consider the massive amounts of irony you spew? I can only assume you're completely unaware of it. |
That's what makes it dramatic irony 
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
