GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2013, 17:30   #26
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Possible? Yes. Reasonably possible? Not without any evidence to suggest it was, IMO.
So, it's beyond a reasonable doubt?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 17:31   #27
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Correct, but I'm using Gunhavers logic on this one.
Oh, you should have asked him about his concept of money before you went there.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 19:34   #28
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, it's beyond a reasonable doubt?

I see no reasonable evidence to suggest a belief in a sentient creative being is warranted, no.
hooligan74 is online now  
Old 01-23-2013, 19:49   #29
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
I see no reasonable evidence to suggest a belief in a sentient creative being is warranted, no.
Not criticizing, just pointing that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is pretty sure.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 20:09   #30
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,346
Do you know of any reasonable physical evidence that points to a sentient creative being?

You need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, absence of belief is the null/default position.
hooligan74 is online now  
Old 01-23-2013, 20:21   #31
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Do you know of any reasonable physical evidence that points to a sentient creative being?
All I know is that what is, is. I don't even claim to know all of what is. I do understand that there is an order to life, and that it is very complex, and not really very likely to have just come together in a primordial soup somewhere, even with Frankenstein's lightning apparatus.

Right, wrong, or even in the wrong direction, I believe it is roughly equally possible that a deity has existed as it is possible that none has existed.

I have left the unanswered question unanswered. Not everyone can do that.

Quote:
You need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, absence of belief is the null/default position.
I've toyed with the concept of the null deity. There are a few that it seems it would fit for, but that's not something I am very sure of.

If you believe something to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, rephrasing it in the passive sense does not really negate the surety of that belief. The difference in how one leads their life is really negligible.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 20:31   #32
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Paraphrasing, so the discoveries made of evolution should lead people to understand that there is almost certainly not a creator?
Rejecting the idea of a god has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution shouldn't lead people to doubt there is a god, the complete lack of evidence for a god should lead people to doubt there is a god.

You don't have to have an alternate explanation to say "sounds like BS to me."
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 20:57   #33
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
Rejecting the idea of a god has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution shouldn't lead people to doubt there is a god, the complete lack of evidence for a god should lead people to doubt there is a god.

You don't have to have an alternate explanation to say "sounds like BS to me."
Evolution didn't occur until after there was life capable of adaptation to it's environment, and enough adaptation that such changes increased the likely hood of survival. Extinction is probably the norm, survival the exception of the good ideas.

Like I've said, from the middle, both sides seem to be making assumptions. Why assume at all? Why not accept that we aren't really sure, and get ready for bed, because we have to wake up and go to work tomorrow.

I'm not dictating. Both sides have every right to assume and believe what they wish.


On a day to day basis, it just doesn't come up that often.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-23-2013 at 20:57..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-23-2013, 22:54   #34
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'd not presume to know what other people should think. It's not a bad idea to understand how they got there thought.

Science is a very good process of discovery, but it is often wrong. It's a human endeavor, and we all know, atheists, agnostics and theists, that humans are imperfect. Right?
Imperfect, without a doubt. But would you care to share the times in the last 100 years in which science has been often wrong?

As far as you not presuming what people should think I call BS. I'm guessing you presume they should think murder is wrong, theft is wrong etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
No. It is two things. The totality of science, not just evolution, should lead people to believe that there is almost certainly not a creator...

English
Brilliant post English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, would you say that you believe it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a creator?
Leave it to Doc to ignore all the points English raised and ask a stupid question to deflect.

And not to answer for English but yes, as he stated, given the totality of science, people should believe is almost certainly not a creator in the religious sense.

Last edited by juggy4711; 01-23-2013 at 23:22.. Reason: spelling, context, avoiding a hopeless topic
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 02:57   #35
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
That is not automatically indicative of a lack of design. For instance, when we as humans design things, we will in fact make decisions that will result in not using the most efficient available energy source/engine/whatever. It depends on the design criteria, and the cost limitations. (Of course, an all-powerful deity would not have cost limitations).

I don't see it as evidence, as there's nothing about the mere fact that only 3 animals use this power source that cleanly indicates a designer would not make that choice.

Now, thing like the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, where there's a more direct route that could have been taken, but wasn't, that kind of thing is certainly something that can be the basis for a statement like 'If this was designed, why is it routed like this?" - precisely because it's easy to see that a designer would route it more efficiently. It's still not strictly indicative of a lack of design, because the "designer" could be bad at designing - but it's a far stronger statement.

Now, if it could be shown through data that this energy source actually would confer a general advantage *and* that it was a relatively recent development when looked at from an evolutionary perspective, you'd have the argument "This is the absolutely the best power source, evolution can explain why more animals aren't using it, whereas the posit of a designer cannot". But without such data it seems a bit of a stretch. (That data may exist, for all I know, all I'm saying is that the mere existence of these three animals, and their use of photosynthesis, is not enough information to build a good argument).
Understand that none of this eliminates the possibility of a designer to me. It only contradicts the very detailed accounts of what kind of designer was involved by those that are sure they know Him to exist. They claim Him to be benevolent, all powerful, omnipotent, ect. In other words, He really loves and cares more that we can possibly imagine and there's nothing He can't do. You can tell by overuse of capital H who I'm talking about.

To me, the fact that predation far surpasses photosynthesis as an energy system in animals contradicts those claims. It's obvious that photosynthesis works in animals and if it's not the most advantageous energy system then it could have been made more efficient by His Omnipotence if He wished.

It's like if you told me that you have a friend named Sarah. I can't disprove that and have no reason to try. If you then tell me that Sarah is a custom jewelry designer and she's the best there ever was at it you nail down your claims down to something that can be evaluated and spark my interest in testing those claims in a single statement. Now show me some work of hers and, knowing a bit about the subject myself, if I see solder joints that are poorly fitted and boiled out, bad eutectic bonds and plain old sloppy fabrications marks left behind I can reasonably say that this person has not shown the level of craftsmanship that would be expected given the claims made of her abilities. Obviously there is some kind of relationship between Sarah and you that makes you biased and gives you motivation to inflate claims of her abilities.

I often refer to The Great Giant Magnet. That's my placeholder term for any magic or supernatural requirements for this universe as yet undiscovered, a label for that .001% possibility of deity that open mindedness requires. I see everything working in nature as moving along perfectly and ingeniously if created, but, most surely created by an indifferent deity with limited power, if created. At the very least that deity cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot move it. But then, when I imagine what deity might look like I don't get carried away in the character development phase because I'm not trying to sell you anything.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:25   #36
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Well, if G36 is back to responding to you then I'm not going to be the only one that misses out on the fun of pointing out your BS logical fallacies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
All I know is that what is, is. I don't even claim to know all of what is. I do understand that there is an order to life, and that it is very complex, and not really very likely to have just come together in a primordial soup somewhere, even with Frankenstein's lightning apparatus.
Again, how do you arrive at the likelihood of abiogenesis in our entire universe? Is a number of natural laboratories uncountable to the billionth power running experiments for what may as well be infinite time not enough for some elements to come together in nearly every possible way? Do you not see that a few hundred years of humans working on the problem is nothing compared to that? How many lightning strikes happen simultaneously in one second in all of existence and how many other energy discharges that we don't even know about?

We just discovered a new particle and from what I hear it's a pretty important one. How do you know there wasn't some past discharge of that particle that may have kicked the whole thing off? Some as yet undiscovered particle? Who's to say we should have this life thing worked out by now? We're still improving on the internal combustion engine.

Nobody is claiming to know all of what is but many of us are real keen on keeping up the investigation rather than assigning credit to figments of imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Right, wrong, or even in the wrong direction, I believe it is roughly equally possible that a deity has existed as it is possible that none has existed.
Wait, you just said it's not very likely that life just happened without divine intervention and now you're giving it a 50-50 probability? It's obvious that you aren't thinking about this as much as you'd have us believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I have left the unanswered question unanswered. Not everyone can do that.
Well you're right about that. Those that can't do that are called scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I've toyed with the concept of the null deity. There are a few that it seems it would fit for, but that's not something I am very sure of.

If you believe something to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, rephrasing it in the passive sense does not really negate the surety of that belief. The difference in how one leads their life is really negligible.
And the rest is of very little substance so I have no response to that.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:04   #37
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
Imperfect, without a doubt. But would you care to share the times in the last 100 years in which science has been often wrong?

As far as you not presuming what people should think I call BS. I'm guessing you presume they should think murder is wrong, theft is wrong etc.



Brilliant post English.



Leave it to Doc to ignore all the points English raised and ask a stupid question to deflect.

And not to answer for English but yes, as he stated, given the totality of science, people should believe is almost certainly not a creator in the religious sense.


English can probably see the point, but I'll try to use small words to help you follow.

He laid out a series of man described religions and deities (gods). Some of them, people just made up. So why choose one? Got that. I'm not bypassing(going around) the point, I'm taking it one more level. The descriptions of a god or other religions by men, that are very fallible (they make mistakes), are unacceptable (he doesn't like them). Got it. Do his examples and the rest of his experiences rule out the possibility of any deity as a creator?




I find your inability to discuss things without losing your temper funny. But I don't wish you any harm. Try to relax.
I am going to ignore your point, maybe not forever, but at least for a while. You won't like the answer. Don't want you to stroke out too soon.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-24-2013 at 06:05..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:50   #38
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
All I know is that what is, is. I don't even claim to know all of what is. I do understand that there is an order to life, and that it is very complex, and not really very likely to have just come together in a primordial soup somewhere, even with Frankenstein's lightning apparatus.

Right, wrong, or even in the wrong direction, I believe it is roughly equally possible that a deity has existed as it is possible that none has existed.

I have left the unanswered question unanswered. Not everyone can do that.



I've toyed with the concept of the null deity. There are a few that it seems it would fit for, but that's not something I am very sure of.

If you believe something to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, rephrasing it in the passive sense does not really negate the surety of that belief. The difference in how one leads their life is really negligible.
Are humans born with an innate belief in a creator, yes or no?
hooligan74 is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:52   #39
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, would you say that you believe it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a creator?
That is a strangely ambiguous sentence. Did you miss a "not"?

The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the basis of working decisions in a law court. It never means that there can be no doubt but only that the space left for doubt is small enough to neglect even though that means the decision will sometimes be wrong. On that basis, I believe the belief that there was a creator is false beyond a reasonable doubt and I lead my life on the assumption that there is no god and never has been.

English
English is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:46   #40
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Are humans born with an innate belief in a creator, yes or no?
Well, I would guess no. Over time, even a person with no human interaction might wonder where they came from. I'd guess there is more than one possible answer.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:01   #41
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Well, I would guess no. Over time, even a person with no human interaction might wonder where they came from. I'd guess there is more than one possible answer.

Wondering where you came from is different from a belief in a diety or dieties, though, right?

I wonder where we came from, too. I just choose not to manufacture an answer based on nothing simply because it makes me more comfortable than saying "I dont' know where we came from".

So, we agree that the default stance on a belief in God or gods is a lack of that belief, yes?
hooligan74 is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:18   #42
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Are humans born with an innate belief in a creator, yes or no?
Humans are innately superstitious and intolerant of things they don't understand. If something happens they don't understand they tend to invent explanations.

For example, if a group of hunter/gathers go through an area and eat all the grain growing there, there won't be any grain the next year when they come back. However, if they leave some grain, and better yet scatter it around, there will be grain when they come back. From that it's easy to conclude that the Earth Sprint gets angry when you eat all its grain. To keep the Earth Spirit from getting angry, you give some of the grain back to it. As we became more sophisticated out gods became more sophisticated.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:36   #43
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
Well, if G36 is back to responding to you then I'm not going to be the only one that misses out on the fun of pointing out your BS logical fallacies.
Sorry about that. I had to. He was trying to misrepresent something I had written with his little "Paraphrasing" nonsense.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:46   #44
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Sorry about that. I had to. He was trying to misrepresent something I had written with his little "Paraphrasing" nonsense.
No worries. He's looking like quite the arrogant fool over 2 of my threads so it's all fun and games now.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 12:17   #45
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Wondering where you came from is different from a belief in a diety or dieties, though, right?

I wonder where we came from, too. I just choose not to manufacture an answer based on nothing simply because it makes me more comfortable than saying "I dont' know where we came from".

So, we agree that the default stance on a belief in God or gods is a lack of that belief, yes?

Well, if you had no interaction with another human, and probably other animals, probably wouldn't get how he got there right, even just a generation ago, let alone the beginnings of life.

Honestly, I don't know, and assuming either without trying it numerous times to allow for different possible outcomes, I would not assume anything. It's not likely to happen considering the potential child abuse issues. I do think the human mind is both inquisitive and imaginative. Every man described deity (if not correct) had to originate somewhere with someone.

To conclude any outcome on an unattempted experiment is just speculation, and that is problematic.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-24-2013 at 12:21..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 12:27   #46
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Every man described deity (if not correct) had to originate somewhere with someone.
But can we not assess the comparitive validity of a myth by assessing the components that make it up? If the myth is composed of juvenile pleas to an absent father figure then is it not likely to come from a juvenile mind trying to find solace in a difficult world?

That is all I see in the bible for instance. It is described by its followers as inerrant, but when I read it I found it to be simplistic, contradictory and fairly immature in substance and style. If I am reading the inerrant word of an omnipotent deity then I would expect to have my mind completely blown with profound wisdom.

Of course there are many other religions out there, some of which genuinely seem more beneficial than harmful to those that subscribe to them. Perhaps one of those has more likelihood of being true.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 01-24-2013 at 16:31..
Geko45 is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 12:31   #47
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post

To conclude any outcome on an unattempted experiment is just speculation, and that is problematic.
And yet that's exactly what you do with your constant "It's all just too complex!" arguments. Hell, you don't even want to rely on the valid experiments that others have done. For instance, life without deity is not a matter of "wild random chance".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html

From the article,

"A somewhat better analogy would be starting with a million junkyards, painstakingly testing the wreckage left in each one after the tornado to find the most flight worthy, making a million exact copies of that junkyard, unleashing another million tornadoes, running another series of exhaustive tests, and so on, until you produce some kind of machine - no matter how crude and un-Boeing-747-like - capable of flying at least a few yards."
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 12:43   #48
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
And yet that's exactly what you do with your constant "It's all just too complex!" arguments. Hell, you don't even want to rely on the valid experiments that others have done. For instance, life without deity is not a matter of "wild random chance".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html

From the article,

"A somewhat better analogy would be starting with a million junkyards, painstakingly testing the wreckage left in each one after the tornado to find the most flight worthy, making a million exact copies of that junkyard, unleashing another million tornadoes, running another series of exhaustive tests, and so on, until you produce some kind of machine - no matter how crude and un-Boeing-747-like - capable of flying at least a few yards."

Tell you what. Run the tornado thing until you get a tricycle. A simple little thing, spokes evenly spaced, pedals on the front wheel only. Not even a chain and gears.

It's not too complex, it is complex enough to not assume either beginning was the only possible way.

Can you not even see the problem? Lets say we (humans, not either of us of course) create life from scratch in an experiment.......with carefully controlled conditions and maybe even manipulation of structures.

How does creating life prove that life was not created again?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 13:02   #49
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Tell you what. Run the tornado thing until you get a tricycle. A simple little thing, spokes evenly spaced, pedals on the front wheel only. Not even a chain and gears.
I went ahead and tried this experiment. After eleventy billion iterations, I came up with this.

Religious Issues
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 13:11   #50
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Tell you what. Run the tornado thing until you get a tricycle. A simple little thing, spokes evenly spaced, pedals on the front wheel only. Not even a chain and gears.

It's not too complex, it is complex enough to not assume either beginning was the only possible way.

Can you not even see the problem? Lets say we (humans, not either of us of course) create life from scratch in an experiment.......with carefully controlled conditions and maybe even manipulation of structures.

How does creating life prove that life was not created again?
I didn't start with the machine parts=biochemical mechanisms analogy. That's your argument. A theist argument. Not surprisingly it's a poor argument since machine parts don't interact anything like the building blocks of life.

Since you argue like a theist I'm going to treat you like one. If you look at life as too complex to arise naturally and therefore in need of a creator then what problem have you solved? You've only taken the imagined status of 'complexity that requires no design' and kicked it up a level where you feel it doesn't need to be addressed. In other words you require a designer (that would have to be even more complex than that which it designs) to do the designing but then remove that designer from the requirement of needing a designer Himself.

That's called special pleading. It's almost like you have a "logical fallacy of the day" calender on your desk.

You've created a deity that's exempt from the need for a designer but when someone claims that same status for something more simplistic like life itself you can't wrap your head around that.

So what makes that designer more of a likelihood than some yet undiscovered natural force to kick the whole life thing off?
Gunhaver is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 966
315 Members
651 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42