Age of the universe

Huntergonzo

Sure the world is about compromise, scientists claim (well have proof, but let's say claim to humour the locals) that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Now on the other hand some Christians belief that a big pixie in the sky created the universe 10,000 years ago.

So in the interest of compromise let's meet half way and say that it came into existence 6.8 billion years ago, everybody happy?

looksee

The Chieftain wrote: »

Ah, I see what has happened! As is so common with the secularist/progressive crowd, they can't see past their own blinkers! In this case the blinkers are an old fashioned one, an inability to see that words can have more than one meaning. I should point out to those suffering from this dangerous narrowing of their lexicographical arteries, that one common meaning of the word "bible" is a copy or edition of the bible, which may contain other material in addition to the cannonical books themselves. The AV as instituted in 1701s included the famous annotations written by Archbishop Ussher. Thus we find:
"The King James Version of the Bible introduced into evidence by the prosecution in Dayton contained Ussher’s famous chronology," and
"In 1701, the Church of England adopted Ussher’s dates for use in its official Bible."

Sad reflection on the state of education these days that this seems to have escaped more than one of our secularist friends. More exercises for the student are clearly required!

That may be what Wikipedia says, but. I have in front of me (as a good Protestant atheist) a copy of the King James bible which starts with a dedication to King James

GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad.

which admittedly is a bit over the top, but none the less there is no mention of Ussher anywhere in this bible.

Furthermore it was not the British Government who authorised the KJ bible, or even demanded its publication, it was on the authority of the king.

PopePalpatine

The Chieftain wrote: »

Sad reflection on the state of education these days that this seems to have escaped more than one of our secularist friends. More exercises for the student are clearly required!

I wonder how you'd react to an Islamic school pushing religious instruction that's just as fundamentalist as your Christianity...:rolleyes:

cardinal tetra

The Chieftain wrote: »

Then why are you here in this forum? Trying to raise your blood pressure? Or just trolling the nice old fuddy-duddy Christians?

In my old school days we were taught to respect the religious consciences and beliefs of others, no matter how wrong we thought they were. That long predated the modern affectation for commanding tolerance and inclusivity for the preferences of the "progressives". Of course that tolerance and inclusivity does not apply to to traditionalists and Christians - they can be insulted and dismissed as "misguided ill-informed wretches".

you cant even see past the oort cloud, nothing has ever left the inner circle of our solar system. the much heralded hubble telescope picks up patterns it may or may not see that orbit a star.

So to conclude indefinitely that the universe is 14 billion years old is a bit of a leap all things considered. Even the fermi paradox cannot be unequivocally proved or discounted but the people who are lining up to say i told you so to people of faith are the worst type of people you could meet.

and if the day comes where you do say i told you so and you can, for a fact prove there is no god, do you think that the churches will be ripped down and the scriptures dumped. We all need something to believe in. some people in religion, others in science. some people believe in chocolate. no more or no less. but the band wagoners trying to take that away from people is just downright rude. anyway. to the original point. there is no more proof that the universe is 14 million years old, then there is in Gods existence. Close thread as one of posters above said.

cardinal tetra

looksee wrote: »

That may be what Wikipedia says, but. I have in front of me (as a good Protestant atheist) a copy of the King James bible which starts with a dedication to King James


which admittedly is a bit over the top, but none the less there is no mention of Ussher anywhere in this bible.

Furthermore it was not the British Government who authorised the KJ bible, or even demanded its publication, it was on the authority of the king.

The capitalisation on that whole passage is Woeful.

Where did you pull it from?

robdonn

cardinal tetra wrote: »

you cant even see past the oort cloud, nothing has ever left the inner circle of our solar system. the much heralded hubble telescope picks up patterns it may or may not see that orbit a star.

So to conclude indefinitely that the universe is 14 billion years old is a bit of a leap all things considered. Even the fermi paradox cannot be unequivocally proved or discounted but the people who are lining up to say i told you so to people of faith are the worst type of people you could meet.

and if the day comes where you do say i told you so and you can, for a fact prove there is no god, do you think that the churches will be ripped down and the scriptures dumped. We all need something to believe in. some people in religion, others in science. some people believe in chocolate. no more or no less. but the band wagoners trying to take that away from people is just downright rude. anyway. to the original point. there is no more proof that the universe is 14 million years old, then there is in Gods existence. Close thread as one of posters above said.

You can see past the Oort Cloud, every star you've ever seen (except the one at the centre of our solar system) is out past the Oort Cloud.

Define the "inner circle of our solar system". Voyager 1 is about 134 Astronomical Units away from us and is considered to be in interstellar space.

The Hubble telescope sees planets move past it's star causing a dip in light. The Hubble telescope measures the atmospheric composition of those planets through measuring absorption lines in the light spectrum as it passes through the planet's atmosphere. The Hubble telescope "sees" planets.

If you can see an object that is 13.7 billion light years away, how old do you think the universe needs to be?

What people are telling you "I told you so" about the Fermi Paradox?

What in the world are you talking about??

sbsquarepants

robdonn wrote: »

If you can see an object that is 13.7 billion light years away, how old do you think the universe needs to be?

6000(ish)??

What do I win?

robdonn

sbsquarepants wrote: »

6000(ish)??

What do I win?

Golden Crocoduck Award

cardinal tetra

robdonn wrote: »

You can see past the Oort Cloud, every star you've ever seen (except the one at the centre of our solar system) is out past the Oort Cloud.

Define the "inner circle of our solar system". Voyager 1 is about 134 Astronomical Units away from us and is considered to be in interstellar space.

The Hubble telescope sees planets move past it's star causing a dip in light. The Hubble telescope measures the atmospheric composition of those planets through measuring absorption lines in the light spectrum as it passes through the planet's atmosphere. The Hubble telescope "sees" planets.

If you can see an object that is 13.7 billion light years away, how old do you think the universe needs to be?

What people are telling you "I told you so" about the Fermi Paradox?

What in the world are you talking about??

ignoring the bit about the fermi paradox as i went on a slight 2 parter tangent due to the boss hovering over me (work boss, not god, although he is there too.). basically voyager one has got to the edge of our solar system which is a coulple of hundred million miles. a great feat but is akin to getting from stephens green shopping center to grafton street. but the other end of the solar system is in Japan. The center of out own galaxy is in fact meant to be a wormhole (theoretically 2 wormholes that collided together about 6.9 billion years ago iirc correctly), im yet to see it myself. up close and personal. of our own galaxy, the stars that you see at night is about 1 millionth of our observable galaxy which is in turn a couple of hundred light years long. we dont even fully understand what is between here and Andromeda. There may be as many as several further planets orbitting our solar system which are as yet unknown and if we wish to debate in another 3900 years when Nubiru comes back to orbit then sun, we can confirm or deny it's existence or trajectory then. but i guess Nubiru doesnt exist because like God, scientists havent told you it exists. or you havent seen it with your own eyes? so it definitely definitely doesnt exist right?

El_Duderino 09

cardinal tetra wrote:

There may be as many as several further planets orbitting our solar system which are as yet unknown and if we wish to debate in another 3900 years when Nubiru comes back to orbit then sun, we can confirm or deny it's existence or trajectory then. but i guess Nubiru doesnt exist because like God, scientists havent told you it exists. or you havent seen it with your own eyes? so it definitely definitely doesnt exist right?

You're actually really close although you're being facetious.

It's nor that it definately doesn't exist. It may exist, it may not. The time to have a positive belief in its existence is after the evidence has been presented.

Same rule applies to gods. No evidence, no belief. It's the same procedure you follow with every truth claim, except the god claim because, as you alluded to earlier, it makes you happy to believe in a god.

robdonn

cardinal tetra wrote: »

ignoring the bit about the fermi paradox as i went on a slight 2 parter tangent due to the boss hovering over me (work boss, not god, although he is there too.). basically voyager one has got to the edge of our solar system which is a coulple of hundred million miles. a great feat but is akin to getting from stephens green shopping center to grafton street. but the other end of the solar system is in Japan. The center of out own galaxy is in fact meant to be a wormhole (theoretically 2 wormholes that collided together about 6.9 billion years ago iirc correctly), im yet to see it myself. up close and personal. of our own galaxy, the stars that you see at night is about 1 millionth of our observable galaxy which is in turn a couple of hundred light years long. we dont even fully understand what is between here and Andromeda. There may be as many as several further planets orbitting our solar system which are as yet unknown and if we wish to debate in another 3900 years when Nubiru comes back to orbit then sun, we can confirm or deny it's existence or trajectory then. but i guess Nubiru doesnt exist because like God, scientists havent told you it exists. or you havent seen it with your own eyes? so it definitely definitely doesnt exist right?

Maybe your boss should hover over your shoulder as you seemed to go on less of a tangent with him/her hovering over you than you did in this post.

Yes, Voyager 1 has both gone very far and not very far, depending on perspective. But you didn't say our solar system, you said the inner circle of our solar system, which you didn't really define. You could mean our inner solar system, which is all the inner rocky planets and the asteroid belt, which Voyager (and a few other probes) have well gone beyond. Or you can mean something else, but I don't know because you never defined it.

The measurements taken of the centre of our galaxy is consistent with our expectations for a supermassive black hole, not a wormhole (or 2). There are traits of our galaxy that indicate it may have merged with another galaxy at some point, maybe that's where you got mixed up? Either way, all of this is just waffle up to your point of the mythical planet Nibiru.

Nibiru may exist, just as a god may exist. Nobody says that it definitely doesn't as nobody can prove a negative (and anyone that does is a fool). But just because something could exist does not give any sway as to whether we believe it does exist.

So if the point you are trying to make is that we cannot disprove the existence of a god so belief in it is valid, then you are wrong. You can have all sorts of reasons to believe, but this is a silly one. It is a construct created to try maintain a god's position in the universe as we learn how much bigger it is than we ever realised. It's pointless as well because it just raises more questions than it answers. By all means, believe in a god and be happy, but be warned that of everything we have observed of the universe so far, we have seen nothing that requires his/her involvement.

===================

Oh, and for anyone who has never heard of the Nibiru Cataclysm, please read here to see what utter nonsense cardinal tetra is bringing up.

looksee

cardinal tetra wrote: »

The capitalisation on that whole passage is Woeful.

Where did you pull it from?

The original is printed in about 5pt type and I didn't feel inclined to copy it, so I picked up a typed up version from online. But the capitalisation in the original is the same woeful.

cardinal tetra

looksee wrote: »

The original is printed in about 5pt type and I didn't feel inclined to copy it, so I picked up a typed up version from online. But the capitalisation in the original is the same woeful.

That would actually make you doubt your faith in god, much less in humanity.

cardinal tetra

robdonn wrote: »

Maybe your boss should hover over your shoulder as you seemed to go on less of a tangent with him/her hovering over you than you did in this post.

Yes, Voyager 1 has both gone very far and not very far, depending on perspective. But you didn't say our solar system, you said the inner circle of our solar system, which you didn't really define. You could mean our inner solar system, which is all the inner rocky planets and the asteroid belt, which Voyager (and a few other probes) have well gone beyond. Or you can mean something else, but I don't know because you never defined it.

The measurements taken of the centre of our galaxy is consistent with our expectations for a supermassive black hole, not a wormhole (or 2). There are traits of our galaxy that indicate it may have merged with another galaxy at some point, maybe that's where you got mixed up? Either way, all of this is just waffle up to your point of the mythical planet Nibiru.

Nibiru may exist, just as a god may exist. Nobody says that it definitely doesn't as nobody can prove a negative (and anyone that does is a fool). But just because something could exist does not give any sway as to whether we believe it does exist.

So if the point you are trying to make is that we cannot disprove the existence of a god so belief in it is valid, then you are wrong. You can have all sorts of reasons to believe, but this is a silly one. It is a construct created to try maintain a god's position in the universe as we learn how much bigger it is than we ever realised. It's pointless as well because it just raises more questions than it answers. By all means, believe in a god and be happy, but be warned that of everything we have observed of the universe so far, we have seen nothing that requires his/her involvement.

===================

Oh, and for anyone who has never heard of the Nibiru Cataclysm, please read here to see what utter nonsense cardinal tetra is bringing up.

But if you are happy to jump to a conclusion that the universe is 13.7 million years old, with only a shred (and thats all it can be defined as, as there is only a theory of observbable universe and there is only a speculation as its formation scientifically), can you not accept then that God can theoretically exist and that there is a greater power at work in the world?

The Chieftain

looksee wrote: »

...which admittedly is a bit over the top, but none the less there is no mention of Ussher anywhere in this bible.

Furthermore it was not the British Government who authorised the KJ bible, or even demanded its publication, it was on the authority of the king.

What you want is a copy with annotations, as printed from 1701 on.

As for authority for the AV, well of course if bears his name (King James), it was written at his behest. But when it was finished, the authorization authorization came from the privy council, which is where the government comes in.

looksee

The Chieftain wrote: »

What you want is a copy with annotations, as printed from 1701 on.

As for authority for the AV, well of course if bears his name (King James), it was written at his behest. But when it was finished, the authorization authorization came from the privy council, which is where the government comes in.

No, actually, I do not want anything of the kind. You said:

The AV as instituted in 1701s included the famous annotations written by Archbishop Ussher.

as evidence of - something - and I pointed out that I have one of those bibles and it is not included. You suggested someone should go to their local CofI church to prove a point you were making, but there is no guarantee that the information would be there.

And the government may 'come in' with your reference to the Privy Council, but the PC is specifically a team of advisers to the monarch some of whom may be, or have been, politicians. That doesn't make it a government matter.

Edgarfrndly

cardinal tetra wrote: »

But if you are happy to jump to a conclusion that the universe is 13.7 million years old, with only a shred (and thats all it can be defined as, as there is only a theory of observbable universe and there is only a speculation as its formation scientifically), can you not accept then that God can theoretically exist and that there is a greater power at work in the world?

A god can theoretically exist, but there is zero evidence that such a figure exists.

There is evidence in support of the Universe being over 13.7 billion years old. There is no evidence in support of a God existing.

What part of this are you having trouble coming to terms with?

pauldla

cardinal tetra wrote: »

That would actually make you doubt your faith in god, much less in humanity.

I actually think it's quite cool; it looks odd to modern eyes, indeed, but that's how they did prose back in the day. And I'd imagine that even the most hardened unbeliever would be unable to deny that the KJV is a masterful achievement of literature.

The Chieftain

looksee wrote: »

And the government may 'come in' with your reference to the Privy Council, but the PC is specifically a team of advisers to the monarch some of whom may be, or have been, politicians. That doesn't make it a government matter.

In the British system, many things are not what they seem at first glance. The British cabinet is a committee of the privy council. The only time a full PC meets is when a monarch dies. Otherwise, just a few key cabinet members, and the monarch, attend PC meetings. It is in effect a mechanism for issuing government orders, e.g. "issued today, via Orders in Council, were..."

robdonn

cardinal tetra wrote: »

But if you are happy to jump to a conclusion that the universe is 13.7 million years old, with only a shred (and thats all it can be defined as, as there is only a theory of observbable universe and there is only a speculation as its formation scientifically), can you not accept then that God can theoretically exist and that there is a greater power at work in the world?

Note: cardinal tetra raised the question, I am simply answering. Since this is the Christianity forum and I don't want to offend the users of this forum, feel free to look away now.

First, it's 13.7 billion.

And it is not a conclusion that was "jumped to", it's one that has been worked out through centuries of scientific observation and experiment. The "shred" of evidence is actually an awful lot of evidence which all starts with a basic premise, 'presuming that there is no magic, how do we explain the state in which we observe the universe?'. We know what stars are made of, we know how they form, live and die, because there are so many stars that we can see them in all stages of their lifespan. We know that the universe is expanding, we can measure the cosmic background radiation as a result of the big bang so we can work out how long it would have taken for the universe to expand to it's current size.

A god could theoretically exist, but light actually does exist. It's speed has been measured to be a constant. When an object is a billion light years away, we know that it took a billion years for the light to get to us. The only other explanations would be that the speed of light is not a constant, and if you have any evidence for that then bring it forward, there would be a Nobel Prize with your name on it. Or, that a god created the universe 6,000 years ago (or whatever made-up number you want to come up with) and made everything to appear as if it was a lot older. That would mean not only making the stars and galaxies, but also placing their light close enough to Earth so that we would be able to see it already. Which makes absolutely no sense!

As for a god, we don't know anything. If we restrict it to the Judeo/Christian god, we have a book that has been written and rewritten over and over and over again over thousands of years that is externally AND internally inconsistent. Then we have personal experiences, which are completely unreliable, and accounts of personal experiences, which are equally unreliable. In the bible you have 2 accounts of genesis that don't match up with each other or common sense. Did god make Adam and Eve together or did he make Adam then make Eve from Adam's rib? God created light to shine on the Earth, and then he made the Sun? The moon is a light? No, it's just the sunlight bouncing off the moon! God created man in his own image? Why the hell does god have a belly button!?!?

I'm going to stop now because it's becoming more of a rant, but my point is that there is a difference between the actual evidence for the age of the universe and the non-existent evidence of your god. So while your god may exist, I have absolutely no reason to believe it.

cardinal tetra

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

A god can theoretically exist, but there is zero evidence that such a figure exists.

There is evidence in support of the Universe being over 13.7 billion years old. There is no evidence in support of a God existing.

What part of this are you having trouble coming to terms with?

Other than the big book of god, his millions of followers and countless appearances throughout history. Perhaps one day, you will be lucky enough to have been touched by the lord.

The Chieftain

looksee wrote: »

\
as evidence of - something - and I pointed out that I have one of those bibles and it is not included. You suggested someone should go to their local CofI church to prove a point you were making, but there is no guarantee that the information would be there.

What you want is an annotated version, as printed after 1701. The annotation in question should be on the first page of the Book of Genesis.

robdonn

The Chieftain wrote: »

What you want is an annotated version, as printed after 1701. The annotation in question should be on the first page of the Book of Genesis.

Is the annotation in all KJV bibles printed after 1701?

PopePalpatine

cardinal tetra wrote: »

Other than the big book of god, his millions of followers and countless appearances throughout history. Perhaps one day, you will be lucky enough to have been touched by the lord.

Why is the number of Christians proof that Yahweh exists? Considering that Hinduism has 750 million followers (about 30% as much as Christianity), does that make the Hindu pantheon ~30% as real as Yahweh?

Edgarfrndly

cardinal tetra wrote: »

Other than the big book of god, his millions of followers and countless appearances throughout history. Perhaps one day, you will be lucky enough to have been touched by the lord.

The bible is no more proof of a God existing, than any other work of fiction is proof of the characters involved in it.

Counting the number of followers is not valid proof that a god exists. I mean, Scientology has millions of followers. By your logic, that would be proof that L. Run Hubbard's claims are valid.

If you actually find evidence that a god exists, I'll be happy to look at it. But until then, you have nothing.

cardinal tetra

as mentioned mods, i think this will be last post on this as its getting silly now argueing with someone who flat out can deny the existance of god and yet believes the universe can only be 13.7 billion years old. such an invalid and incoherent arguement. It can be vastly vastly bigger if it wants to be, hence the term obsevable universe. your tiny brain may only be able to comprehend the enormity of 13.7 billion years but what about an omniverse, or multiverse. what about a layered universe. why cant all of these things be perceptable. 500 years ago, everything we thought about the world and the universe was wrong. in 500 years time, the same will apply. and even though the universe around us will be proven and disproven and argued and lamented, the constant of god and religion will remain. It annoys me that people need to see the second coming of christ or God floating down on a cloud in order for them to ease their scepticism. Ironically, it will be science, rather than Religion that will destroy Humanity but thats a whole different thread altogether.

robdonn wrote: »

Note: cardinal tetra raised the question, I am simply answering. Since this is the Christianity forum and I don't want to offend the users of this forum, feel free to look away now.

First, it's 13.7 billion.

And it is not a conclusion that was "jumped to", it's one that has been worked out through centuries of scientific observation and experiment. The "shred" of evidence is actually an awful lot of evidence which all starts with a basic premise, 'presuming that there is no magic, how do we explain the state in which we observe the universe?'. We know what stars are made of, we know how they form, live and die, because there are so many stars that we can see them in all stages of their lifespan. We know that the universe is expanding, we can measure the cosmic background radiation as a result of the big bang so we can work out how long it would have taken for the universe to expand to it's current size.

A god could theoretically exist, but light actually does exist. It's speed has been measured to be a constant. When an object is a billion light years away, we know that it took a billion years for the light to get to us. The only other explanations would be that the speed of light is not a constant, and if you have any evidence for that then bring it forward, there would be a Nobel Prize with your name on it. Or, that a god created the universe 6,000 years ago (or whatever made-up number you want to come up with) and made everything to appear as if it was a lot older. That would mean not only making the stars and galaxies, but also placing their light close enough to Earth so that we would be able to see it already. Which makes absolutely no sense!

As for a god, we don't know anything. If we restrict it to the Judeo/Christian god, we have a book that has been written and rewritten over and over and over again over thousands of years that is externally AND internally inconsistent. Then we have personal experiences, which are completely unreliable, and accounts of personal experiences, which are equally unreliable. In the bible you have 2 accounts of genesis that don't match up with each other or common sense. Did god make Adam and Eve together or did he make Adam then make Eve from Adam's rib? God created light to shine on the Earth, and then he made the Sun? The moon is a light? No, it's just the sunlight bouncing off the moon! God created man in his own image? Why the hell does god have a belly button!?!?

I'm going to stop now because it's becoming more of a rant, but my point is that there is a difference between the actual evidence for the age of the universe and the non-existent evidence of your god. So while your god may exist, I have absolutely no reason to believe it.

frag420

cardinal tetra wrote: »

Other than the big book of god, his millions of followers and countless appearances throughout history. Perhaps one day, you will be lucky enough to have been touched by the lord.

You would think at this stage god would just appear one last time to prove he exists. If he time to plant fossils and build planets to test our faith then surely he owes us 30 seconds of his time as it would save both him and his followers a lot of heartache!

Imagine (hard) that you had a hot partner and you told all your friends about him/her. However you have no pics of your hot partner, they arenot on facebook. In fact there is no proof they exist at all.

So now your friends and colleagues do not believe you as its sounds unbelievable that you would have a hot partner. So you ask your partner to come for a few drinks and meet your friends/colleagues to put their mind at ease as you are sick and frustrated with the constant disbelief and ribbing that you would have a hot partner. Your partner ignores your request, doesn't really care what your friend thinks despite knowing how it affects you!

Would you dump them? Would you beg them to make a quick appearance? Would you be a bit annoyed that they would not help you out despite how easy it would be to help you out? Curious to know what you would do!

robdonn

cardinal tetra wrote: »

as mentioned mods, i think this will be last post on this as its getting silly now argueing with someone who flat out can deny the existance of god and yet believes the universe can only be 13.7 billion years old. such an invalid and incoherent arguement. It can be vastly vastly bigger if it wants to be, hence the term obsevable universe. your tiny brain may only be able to comprehend the enormity of 13.7 billion years but what about an omniverse, or multiverse. what about a layered universe. why cant all of these things be perceptable. 500 years ago, everything we thought about the world and the universe was wrong. in 500 years time, the same will apply. and even though the universe around us will be proven and disproven and argued and lamented, the constant of god and religion will remain. It annoys me that people need to see the second coming of christ or God floating down on a cloud in order for them to ease their scepticism. Ironically, it will be science, rather than Religion that will destroy Humanity but thats a whole different thread altogether.

Missing the point again. These are some of the reasons why I can believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, this number can of course be wrong if new evidence comes to light. Since you're providing none, I guess I'll continue trusting the science for now. No evidence for a multiverse, so no reason to believe it, but it could exist. No evidence for god, so no reason to believe it, but it could exist.

I'm sorry that my reliance on evidence to build my view of the world annoys you, maybe you can dream up another imaginary friend to comfort you.

But farewell, since this is your last post on the topic.

frag420

cardinal tetra wrote: »

Ironically, it will be science, rather than Religion that will destroy Humanity but thats a whole different thread altogether.

Yes because all those new medicinal discoveries and cures will destroy humanity? :rolleyes:

Next time you are sick or in an accident I will assume you will be taking your bible out to pray instead of calling a medical professional who through the use of science can help you?

The Chieftain

robdonn wrote: »

But farewell, since this is your last post on the topic.

Another big success for the A&A project? Just keep being disruptive and obnoxious, make the Christians disappear... cleansing at its finest.