American Scientific Affiliation: Some extinctions may be just as well

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I remember seeing the cover of a book by Stephen Jay Gould, lamenting the decline of species of snails* somewhere, with the species illustrated. I couldn’t tell the difference between them for beans, and that’s quite different from not being able to tell the difference between a dog and a cat – though it is said that they have a common ancestor. One thing is certain: They cannot interbreed. They parted—unamicably, I suspect—a long time ago. Now to the point: I want to write about what I take to be the extinction of the American Scientific Affiliation, which exists to promote “theistic evolution,” so far as I can see., but is probably now best employed promoting grey hair formulas for shampoo. One columnist notes, here:

… it is with some astonishment that recently I received an email asking why attendance at ASA meetings has “grayed” so much, with one reporting that only 5 in a crowd of 80-100 were below the age of 40. A mail-in survey of 53% of the members found that less than 15% were below 40, (and apparently not desirous of attending meetings.) An anecdotal survey of other Christian affiliations of scientists found them with larger percentages of young scientists. So what ailment has afflicted the ASA?

Okay, why did ASA get started, post-World War II? To tell the world that there is no conflict between Christ (“take up your cross and follow me”) and Darwin (“survival of the fittest”). Because that would be bad for up-to-date religion. Darwin sure thought there was a conflict, which is why he was a materialist atheist from long before he wrote Origin of Species, let alone Descent of Man, which – so far as I can see – is one long racist tract, never properly denounced or renounced by Darwinists. But that does not matter any more. People can promote racism today, as long as they can cite the sainted name of Darwin. Otherwise, why has Jim Watson’s Nobel Prize not been revoked, the way David Ahenakew’s Order of Canada was revoked, and for the same reasons? We do not need these hassles. In my view, those are the sorts of issues that a “theistic evolution” group – right or wrong – should have been strenuously addressing. Not trying to convince Christians that Christ and Darwin would have been pals, when everyone knows it is not true. Well, the ASA got around to conducting a survey of its members’ beliefs, reported June 1, 2010, and here are some of the results, and here are my comments.

Comments

Exodus 18:21- 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.Phaedros_{June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

---"Democracies, for example, establish their laws roughly on a kind of consensus basis whereby the laws are determined by a majority view." What you are describing is what the founders described as a "tyranny of the majority" or mob rule and something to be avoided. The difference between the American Revolution, which was a success, and the French Revolution, which was a disaster, is the difference between mob rule and rule by law based on the natural moral law. When the latter standard is calling the shots, everyone's rights can be protected, even those who disagree with the majority. No one, kings, presidents, congressmen, or even the mobs, are above this law; they are all subject to it. Unfortunately, a group of anti-intellectual bigots in black robes rewrote the rules and dispensed with the natural moral law as the standard on which the civil law would stand. That is why the United States is now ruled by judges, magnates, and mobs, a formula that cannot sustain any society for very long, as is evident in the way the United States is beginning to come apart at the seams.StephenB_{June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB (65), "If you can condemn Hitler based only on your own standards, and Hitler can condemn your condemnation based on his standards, we are all at war with one another" Yes indeed. That is why we had World War II. But it's not quite that simple, because it's not just all of us against each other - in WWII, the situation was that Hitler's standards were directly contrary to the standards of pretty much everybody else (Japan and Musslini excepted). "with no possibility for peace and order because there is no objective standard to adjudicate the differences of opinion." Indeed, which is why Hitler had to be defeated. Once he was defeated, of course, peace reigned - at least until the victorious allies realised they had their own non-objective differences to sort out.... "It is not possible to establish a well-ordered society when each person is a law unto himself." But most societies DON'T let individuals be laws unto themselves. Societies establish laws precisely because they don't want each individual to determine their own laws - it just wouldn't work. Democracies, for example, establish their laws roughly on a kind of consensus basis whereby the laws are determined by a majority view. Note that even matters you would tend to consider were "objective" laws - the "thou shalt not kill" type of thing - aren't left to natural law alone, they are legislated for. Societies can be, and are, well ordered on that basis, without just relying on natural law.Gaz_{June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

If you can condemn Hitler based only on your own standards, and Hitler can condemn your condemnation based on his standards, we are all at war with one another with no possibility for peace and order because there is no objective standard to adjudicate the differences of opinion
Alas, and sadly, that seems to describe pretty much the entirety of human history, regardless of the lack or prevalence of religious belief.San Antonio Rose_{June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

There is one other thing I wish to mention in this thread... Toronto, as for your taunt concerning infallibility and truth: It is clear that no one here (including yourself) will lay claim to infallibiity. None of us can legitimately 'open that scroll' as it were. We are not qualified to lay claim to truth, the earth, or the heavens. Nor can we define origins, meaning, purpose, and destiny with presumed authority. We are in a terribly sad position... 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals." 6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. (Revelation 5) So Toronto, regarding infallibility, you asked @42, 'Do you personally know any human being who claims to be? Yes Toronto I do. John 6:25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" 26 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." 30 So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 32 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." 35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" 43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. So I had a choice Toronto... I could choose to believe a deconstructionist like yourself who questions everything. And btw, it seems to me that the first incarnation of your 'mode of thinking' came in the Garden of Eden when Satan ask the woman, 'Has God really said'? Postmodernism is in that sense, the oldest of all religions; and when religion replaced truth, and walking with God personally. Or... I could choose to believe someone who at least has the consistent and proper credentials to be able to legitimately claim such a title and worthiness. And His word is never inconsistent or divided. It's a no brainer. For years I labored, and all the while it was the simplest of all equations. A child could grasp it. And the most ironic of all in my mind (as Clive eluded to in his questions @64), is that such authority must be implied in order to question and judge as well. But that has not stopped you and yours from doing so since the beginning. That's it! That is all I have to say at this time. Get thee behind me... I only worship the Living God and I will have no others before him. As for your questions and implied assertions? Job 13:12 Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay.Lock_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Toronto @24 'You of all people here should know better than to accuse me of that.' Really??? That's funny, I don't say much here, and only a fraction of what I have said was in conversation with you. What a distinctly personal thing to say... What exactly could have prompted such an odd comment, except that you and I have already spent years arguing in these endless circles and your screen name at EVC and Dreamcatcher is Ringo? I expect no concession. That much I have learned. Gentlemen, I refer you to my comments @16. And forgive me. If I were not half troll myself, I would not carry such parasites with me.Lock_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Clive @64 'I think you’re doing this for sport, because it surely cannot be for real.' Prescisely! But not necessarily consciously... Jesus' rebuke of Peter comes to mind. 'Get thee behind me...'Lock_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Have you seen this video toronto?: Cruel Logic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnIbornagain77_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: Why can’t I condemn him [Hitler] based on my own standards. The reason for that should be clear. If you can condemn Hitler based only on your own standards, and Hitler can condemn your condemnation based on his standards, we are all at war with one another with no possibility for peace and order because there is no objective standard to adjudicate the differences of opinion. It is not possible to establish a well-ordered society when each person is a law unto himself. ---“I believe he was bad and don’t need anyone else’s values to validate my condemning him.” Hitler believes he was NOT bad. If your opinion is no better than his, why should he be stopped? ---“That is the important point, that I have a responsibility to judge those that come to me with pre-authorized absolute values and determine whether or not I should accept them, whether it is StephenB or Hitler who brings them.” Do you mean to say that you “have” such a responsibility, or do you mean to say that you “believe” you have such a responsibility and could be wrong, which would be consistent with your earlier views? Notice that when others are doing the judging, you are a relativist, but when you are doing the judging, you become an absolutist, except when called on it, at which time, you promptly return to being a relativist.StephenB_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Toronto,
Are you infallible?
You might as well ask me if I like to eat fried chicken, because being occasionally fallible has nothing to do with whether or not absolute truth exists. Fallibility has nothing to do with truth. The trivial and boring point that man is sometimes wrong, doesn't mean that man is always wrong. Your assertion, however, demands that man is always wrong. I'll try to make it easy for you. The assertion that man is fallible is not itself a fallible argument, it has to be necessarily true in order to make the argument you are making. Therefore, at least one thing is not considered untrue because man is fallible, and that is the assertion that man is fallible. Now, if you maintain that you cannot ever know that man is fallible, then you are still making a true statement about what you cannot know, which must......this is boring me, to be honest. I think you're a troll that is amusing him or herself with this nonsensical argument. Surely you cannot be serious with this argument that there is no such thing as real argument. This ultimate truth of yours that there is no such thing as ultimate truth. I think you're doing this for sport, because it surely cannot be for real. I'll ask you two questions to discern your integrity and commitment to this argument. Are you an infallible human being? Do you know this to be true? If you say yes, you contradict yourself. If you say no, you contradict yourself. Either way, you're making a truth statement.Clive Hayden_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

TYPO:I missed a few letters in a previous comment. --I believe that previous statement of mine and any other statements I or anyone else asserts --cannot-- be considered absolutely “true”, because I do not believe I or anyone else, is infallible.--Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 59, Please return the favour and answer my question. Are you infallible?Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 59,
So you’re telling me that since you do not believe in truth,..
I did not say I don't believe in truth, I said any assertion of mine cannot be considered "true" in a logical, i.e., an input into a "truth table", sense.
That means that man could be, in principle, infallible, correct?
Absolutely 100% agreed!!!!!!! As odd as that sounds, it would give validity to the whole idea of prophecy. It could be quite possible that man's role is that of an error correction mechanism that smooths out the randomness of nature such that certain events, but not all, are guaranteed to happen. I don't think that means that everyone needs to be infallible for that to be the case.Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 56,
If you are fallible, then your belief in an absolute truth is no more valid than mine, that there is no absolute truth.
"If you are fallible..", means to me, "if it is possible you are wrong". If you are fallible, then any opinion you present has a possibility of being "untrue", just as any opinion I present has the possibility of being "untrue". You believe in an absolute truth and I don't. One of us two imperfect beings are right and yet you claim it is illogical for me to claim your are the one that is wrong while you claim to be justified in saying I am wrong. Please explain to me "why" it is "illogical" to believe a fallible person may be wrong.Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Toronto,
I believe that previous statement of mine and any other statements I or anyone else asserts can be considered absolutely “true”, because I do not believe I or anyone else, is infallible.
It doesn't follow that since man can make mistakes that he always does. Man being fallible doesn't mean that he always is fallible by necessity, does it? So you're telling me that since you do not believe in truth, then you do not really believe in your assertion that man is absolutely fallible. That means that man could be, in principle, infallible, correct?Clive Hayden_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 57,
Answer my question with an actual answer, not with more questions.
Okay.
[Toronto:]Since you are not infallible, you cannot tell me with any authority whatsoever, that your views on absolute truth are right. [Clive Hayden:]Do you take this assertion to be “true” and infallible?
I believe that previous statement of mine and any other statements I or anyone else asserts can be considered absolutely "true", because I do not believe I or anyone else, is infallible. Now please return the favour and answer a question of mine. Are you infallible?Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Toronto,
Clive Hayden @ 46,
Do you take this assertion to be “true” and infallible?
I think we have something to work with here. 1) Are either of us infallible? 2) If neither of us are infallible, how do you and I decide who is right? 3) Do we base it on who has obviously reached the right conclusion?
Answer my question with an actual answer, not with more questions.Clive Hayden_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Toronto,
If you are fallible, then your belief in an absolute truth is no more valid than mine, that there is no absolute truth.
You actually said it....there is no absolute truth......I think you're wasting StephenB's time, my time, and this blogs time if you cannot see this obvious contradiction.Clive Hayden_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 49,
You cannot condemn Hitler’s views on freedom of expression because you have no standard except your own beliefs,..
Why can't I condemn him based on my own standards. I believe he was bad and don't need anyone else's values to validate my condemning him.
..which allow for equal tolerance of all other beliefs–including those of Hitler.
My standards don't force me to tolerate anyone or their beliefs.
Given that fact, you could not have stood up at Nuremburg to declare that Hitler’s views violated the the natural moral law. How could you say that he violated a code that you also claim doesn’t exist?
I don't say that he violated a code I claim doesn't exist. I claim that he violated a standard of behaviour expected of him, and any other leader, by me. That is the important point, that I have a responsibility to judge those that come to me with pre-authorized absolute values and determine whether or not I should accept them, whether it is StephenB or Hitler who brings them.Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 49,
If you tell me that Hitler’s views on freedom were inferior to yours, you refute your own philosophy by acknowledging the objective moral standard on which both can be judged.
I acknowledge no absolute standard when I judge Hitler. I judge him and everyone else according to my own standards. It is my belief as a fallible human being, that Hitler should have been hit in the face with a shovel. While I may be wrong about that, I believe there is no absolute truth anyone could try to convince me of that would prevent me from hitting Hitler in the face with a shovel.Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 49,
—Thus, you conclude that you could be wrong about the point that people should be free to express themselves.
I could be wrong about anything because I am fallible. Are you? If you are fallible, then your belief in an absolute truth is no more valid than mine, that there is no absolute truth.
If someone else “believes” differently then, that is their legitimate privilege (given your philosophy).
Of course. That is what freedom is all about and why people die for it.Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 50,
You cannot condemn Hitler’s views on freedom of expression because you have no standard except your own beliefs, which allow for equal tolerance of all other beliefs–including those of Hitler.
I can condemn Hitler's beliefs just as I can condemn your choice of car colour. The fact that I don't believe in an absolute transcendent colour code which defines the colours acceptable for use in the painting of motor vehicles does not mean that I accept anyone should paint their car green, since in my opinion, that is an ugly colour.Toronto_{June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Wow, as much as I would like to believe that that is checkmate, I am far too conscious of Job chapter 40 and 41. Let the morphing begin...Lock_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 49,
Nice try, but we are not discussing my views at the moment, we are discussing your views.
We have taken opposing positions on one topic, that of an existence of an absolute truth, so it is both our views that must be discussed, since if one is true, the other isn't. Can we agree, that on this topic, if you are right, I am wrong?
I don’t need to be infallible to present your own views to you.
You need to be infallible on the single point that an absolute truth exists. If it doesn't, then you simply have a belief that is no more relevant than mine.Toronto_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "Since you are not infallible, you cannot tell me with any authority whatsoever, that your views on absolute truth are right."' Nice try, but we are not discussing my views at the moment, we are discussing your views. So, is this your way of admitting that Hitler's views of freedom are just as valid as yours without saying so explictly, or were you hoping that I would simply let the matter drop? ---If your are infallible however, tell me so, and you get yourself an easy win." I don't need to be infallible to present your own views to you. Indeed, your views keep morphing to keep pace with my refutations. You began by stating that you "recognize" [as in picking up on a self evident truth] that humans should be free to express themselves. Following that, I asked you if you did, indeed, "recognize" that fact or if you only "believed" it. You clarified [strategically adjusted] your meaning by abandoning the word "recognize" and changing it to "believe." Thus, you conclude that you could be wrong about the point that people should be free to express themselves. If someone else "believes" differently then, that is their legitimate privilege (given your philosophy). [If you had been at the Nuremburg trials, I gather that you would have stood with Hitler and demanded that all charges against him be dropped on the grounds that his beliefs about truth and morality were no better or worse than those of his accusers.] ---"A statement like this, means your gas tank is close to empty." Quite the contrary, I have placed your own views in your lap and you cannot respond. If you tell me that Hitler's views on freedom were inferior to yours, you refute your own philosophy by acknowledging the objective moral standard on which both can be judged. If you tell me that Hitler's views were on the same moral plane as yours, you expose the emptiness and irrationality of your philosophy. So, you simply evade the issue. You cannot condemn Hitler's views on freedom of expression because you have no standard except your own beliefs, which allow for equal tolerance of all other beliefs--including those of Hitler. Given that fact, you could not have stood up at Nuremburg to declare that Hitler's views violated the the natural moral law. How could you say that he violated a code that you also claim doesn't exist?StephenB_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 46,
Do you take this assertion to be “true” and infallible?
I think we have something to work with here. 1) Are either of us infallible? 2) If neither of us are infallible, how do you and I decide who is right? 3) Do we base it on who has obviously reached the right conclusion?Toronto_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 45,
[Toronto:]Good software is designed that way with components that can to a large degree change without requiring the architect to be there after the system is already designed.
[gpuccio:]That’s true, it is called error handling.
No, here we are talking about the actual design of the software such as protocol stacks, device drivers, programmer interfaces, etc. For instance, I could replace the terminal driver with one that can re-direct it's input and output to a terminal in another city. The application software would not know whether the user was in the room or half-way across the country. By dealing with components, changes are localized. I would do the same with biology, and design the system so that changes can be made to adapt to environmental pressures without having to hands-on design a new system. DNA seems to be something that's used by life-forms in the same way across different species.Toronto_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Toronto,
Since you are not infallible, you cannot tell me with any authority whatsoever, that your views on absolute truth are right.
Do you take this assertion to be "true" and infallible? You'll realize that, in the end, your position cannot be maintained. Even the singular phrase, all truth is relative, is not relative. The assertion that "we all could be wrong", is taken to be right, and if it were wrong, then someone would still be right. In the end, there is what is right, and you can run in a circle all you want, but you cannot escape this truth.Clive Hayden_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Toronto (#38): OK, you can discuss a bit at a time, that's fine for me. I agree with much that you say in this post, but I need to clarify some points: If there was an intelligent designer, why not design something that can adapt to whatever nature throws at it? What we are talking about in evolution is simply biological feedback. Here it seems that you are talking in neo-Lamarckian perspective. I agree that adaptation may have some role in evolution, but only a minor role (see after). But the neo-darwinian model does not include active adaptation. If a mutation results in a body plan that reproduces more often than another, that body plan becomes more prevalent in the environment. Yes. If. As a designer, that’s what I would consider good design, something that doesn’t require attention from me constantly. I don't agree. Good design is something that doesn’t require attention from me constantly to work in the way I have designed it. A software which iomproves itself in a random, unexpected way, juist because it cannot be otherwise, and not because I have designed that, is neither good nor bad design. It's no design at all. Just mere accident. As a designer, I could only be proud of my great luck. Good software is designed that way with components that can to a large degree change without requiring the architect to be there after the system is already designed. That's true, it is called error handling. And it is intended to make the software constantly work in the way it was designed. In biology, we have many examples of complex and efficient algorithms which implement error handling: DNA repair, apoptosis, etc. Their purpose is not to implement change, but to prevent change. So in a million generations, a million bits have changed in the life-form. At 20 years per generation, that’s only 20 million years. I suppose you are referring to your previous example. And I suppose you are right (I don't remember the details of your example). And so?gpuccio_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 43,
Since you are not infallible, you cannot tell them with any moral authority that they are wrong.
Since you are not infallible, you cannot tell me with any authority whatsoever, that your views on absolute truth are right. If your are infallible however, tell me so, and you get yourself an easy win.
If you had been at the Nuremburg trials, I gather that you would have stood with Hitler and demanded that all charges against him be dropped on the grounds that his beliefs about truth and morality were no better or worse than those of his accusers.
A statement like this, means your gas tank is close to empty.Toronto_{June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply