Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
I was helping my son study last night for biology.
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 106
| visibility 1

I was helping my son study last night for biology.


Mar 2, 2021, 7:13 AM

Good old metabolic pathway stuff like the Krebs cycle, glycolysis, etc....complex chemical reactions so far beyond what someone in a lab could have devised that it’s not funny.

I’ve said it before, but IMHO when you start digging into all of the actions and reactions and symbiotic workings required to make life as we know it happen, I really struggle to understand how someone can firmly believe that it’s all a random cosmic coincidence.

Not even talking about Christianity or an Abrahamic God—just a creator, any creator, in general. Could be a spiritual being, could be some alien master race, could be a sim that we’re all living in inside some kid’s Commodore 64, but complete disbelief in any form of creator just seems far more fantastical and far-fetched to me than the belief in one when you just look at the complexities of life as we know it.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology.


Mar 2, 2021, 7:40 AM

I see the same findings, but take a different conclusion. Life is impossibly intricate. Biology is the end product of biochemistry and the rules of physics that govern it.

Chemical and electrical gradients created by special proteins that function as pumps, using the tiniest molecules of energy to push potassium ions against a gradient. There’s no reason for this, it just is. It’s the laws of physics that govern our universe.

The simultaneous flawless function of trillions of cells in your body, a significant portion of them bacteria that work alongside your cells, is an intricate and intertangled web of seemingly random and constantly moving parts, that doesn’t do it for any reason other than it just...does. It’s the cold, impartial nature of reality. There is no why, there’s only what is.

It helps if you consider deep time and the fact that life took billions of years, 4,500,000,000 years, for life to develop to what it is now. That concept is literally impossible for our brains to conceive, that our existence and that if everyone we have ever or will ever know is a grain of sand on the ocean floor of time. But, when you remember that life selects the most advantageous traits in order to perpetuate, the increasing complexity of what we see just makes sense. Would anyone argue that our bodies, or any life on earth, is perfect? No, of course not. Natural selection and evolution of all life from single cells to blue whales continues, we just can’t see it due to our extremely narrow window in time.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

All of that is true, but you're describing what we know


Mar 2, 2021, 7:49 AM

to be true. There's happenings before that that we don't know of. All of this came from something, and when you bump up against the very limits of what you can explain, it came from something as well.

Your alternative is to say that everything you just described somehow literally came from absolute nothingness into being, and a man of science should have issues with the laws of physics and thermodynamics that would be violated in that process.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: All of that is true, but you're describing what we know


Mar 2, 2021, 8:04 AM

How far back do you want to go? Your post made me consider life and the beauty of the biochemistry that makes our organs function. Thanks to fossil records and people way smarter than I am, life can be traced back billions of years. Before that? How life started? How the earth was formed? The accretion disk that formed our solar system?

Before that? A singularity? Who's to say. We can only observe shadows of it: expansion, cosmic radiation, etc. Before that? What came before matter and energy and the physics that occurs between them? At that point you're questioning the very nature of reality itself.

People like to put a date on it, because it helps our brains to understand beginnings of a story, but what if the universe just... always was?

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: All of that is true, but you're describing what we know


Mar 2, 2021, 9:13 AM

It is very possible that the universe always existed and that when the Big Bang happened it changed everything so much that we just tend to see that as a beginning - a beginning of a whole new set of rules through which the universe works - physics, chemistry, etc.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

As an adult I had never had surgery until


Mar 2, 2021, 8:04 AM [ in reply to Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology. ]

yesterday. I can tell you that I have a MUCH deeper appreciation for that work and all the people that are a part of making it happen. I was at an awesome hospital and I am extremely lucky to have it basically right by my house. (3miles or so) It’s not that I didn’t before but seeing surgery on YouTube and then actually being rolled into the room is completely different. I can tell you that I don’t know how you don’t get rolled in there praying to a higher being and it was only my ankle. I am a very flawed person, but I do know God and I leaned on him heavily yesterday for comfort. I don’t know what you do if you don’t have that comfort.

Charleston, you can get a good laugh at this. The anasthesiologist (sp?butchered) came in and started working on my blocker another guy came in and said he was going to give me something through my IV to make the pain better for the blocker. He says, “do you drink?” I laughed and said yes, he says, “I am about to get you the best whiskey drunk you ever felt in 2 two minutes time”. He pumped that fentanyl in me and he was right, I was out of it. ‘‘Twas amazing.

Thanks for what you do and working hard to make it happen.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: As an adult I had never had surgery until


Mar 2, 2021, 8:12 AM

Something special happens in the operating room. The public, our patients, heck even the overwhelming majority of doctors, are intimidated by what happens there. But the ones who are drawn to it? It's like a drug. It's all I want to do. I see patients in clinic, round on patients on the floor, see consults, etc, do all the stuff other doctors do... but I'm doing all that just so I can get back to the OR to get another hit.

It's audacious what we do, and I reluctantly include anesthesiologists in that royal "we" as well, because the science of rendering you unconscious and blocking all pain receptors, for a controlled duration of time, and emerging people smoothly from it at their will is still somewhat miraculous to me. If they are the wizards of the OR, my part of the show is more akin to a good auto mechanic.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: As an adult I had never had surgery until


Mar 2, 2021, 12:05 PM

At least the auto mechanic can cut the car off while operating.
That's some pretty impressive stuff. You have to have nerves of steel.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Charlestontiger has some traits that really lend themselves


Mar 2, 2021, 12:33 PM

to being a great surgeon, and sociopathy is high atop that list.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It's not really sociopathy,


Mar 2, 2021, 1:03 PM

surgeons have plenty of empathy, aren't impulsive or deceitful.

I think the word you were looking for is hubris.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

lmao, touche.


Mar 2, 2021, 1:07 PM

I was more going with the point that whether a patient lives or dies, you're still popping a cork and making fondant potatoes that night. Additionally, if the sociopathy tag were actually serious and legit, I picture your response to the Dean back in the day of the event that shall not be spoken being more like "Yes....and your point is?"

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: lmao, touche.


Mar 2, 2021, 1:12 PM

At some point you have to accept that complications and bad outcomes are going to happen. If you can't accept that, you can't be a surgeon. I've seen it many times, in people that I trained with who just couldn't do it.

That being said, accepting it doesn't mean that it isn't haunting. I know the name and face of everyone I've operated on and hurt. I can see the faces of just about everyone I've seen die in the hospital, even if I "met" them just responding to a code. I lay awake at night staring at my ceiling worrying about every single decision I make, in the OR or in managing patients.

If it was all fine wine and fondant potatoes, everyone would want to do it.

All surgeons are cocky littleshits though, that's a fact. Its basically required to believe you can cut someone open and put them back together.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Ok, lemme hit pause,


Mar 2, 2021, 1:13 PM

and I will apologize for not being clear. I was totally joking. I know you're not a sociopath and I know you're not callous to poor outcomes with your patients when they happen. 100% joke

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Ok, lemme hit pause,


Mar 2, 2021, 1:14 PM

There's no joking here Obed, this is a place of serious religious and political topics.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So I know you didn't mean it this way,


Mar 2, 2021, 1:15 PM

but my aunt was murdered by a serious religious and political comedy troupe, so maybe a little trigger warning in the subject line next time?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: lmao, touche.


Mar 2, 2021, 1:25 PM [ in reply to Re: lmao, touche. ]

I definitely wouldn't want a surgeon that lacked confidence operating on me.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Exactly***


Mar 2, 2021, 1:26 PM



2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And I take the blend of yours and Obeds.


Mar 2, 2021, 8:51 AM [ in reply to Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology. ]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2011_pickem_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-soccerkrzy.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Cole @ Beach Cole w/ Clemson Hat


Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:10 AM [ in reply to Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology. ]

Yeah, I think the conception of 6 billion years is the root of most of our difficulties - that and our inability to find more evidence from early, early evolution. It IS mind-boggling, but I think that points to the limits of OUR ability to understand - and NOT the reality of the process of evolution being able to arrive at such complexity.

One of the arguments against a creator that I find most compelling is the fact that over 95 % of all forms of life that have ever existed are extinct. Why would an intelligent creator create so many forms of life just to make them fail ?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That is not an argument against a creator. It is a


Mar 2, 2021, 12:41 PM

justification for a bias against a creator, and not a compelling one.

An animal dies. If all of that animal die, one can say a "species" died, but "species" is just a name humans give to a collection of animals. The last one dying is no more an event than the first one. And you might disagree with that. And God might or might not. God, if one exists, can arrange things in a way that are not required to agree with your ideas. Most adolescents don't understand why their parents do certain things, and our moral capability is not even adolescent compared to an objective standard.

And you might ask "why an animal dies". You first have to answer how one lives. You have no answer to that, not because you wouldn't be capable of it, but because no one has. Science has no answer to it. Is not going to have.

So, philosophically, you are declaring your personal moral standards to be perfect, assessing God against them, and finding Him lacking. Scientifically, you are assuming things to exist for which science has no explanation, and no proposals for an explanation. Is either of those, let along taken together, a stance from which you want to perceive truth?

If that was one of your most compelling arguments against God existing, you have some very important questions to now consider.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: That is not an argument against a creator. It is a


Mar 2, 2021, 1:51 PM

Tulsa

I have to admit that I am a bit confused as to your point. You seem to bounce around a bit and to state with certainty, things that are speculative or philosophic by nature.

There were a few points that seemed clear with which I disagree.

1. Science has no answer for how animals live ?? And never will ??

2. I am not sure where my moral standards come into this.

3. I am assuming that things exist for which science has no explanation ? Could you tell me what those things are ??

Finally, I propose to perceive truth from empirical evidence and rational thinking. I find a non-created and non-guided evolutionary process a far more sound explanation for why so many species of animals are extinct than some supernatural anthropomorphized entity who seemed to make that many mistakes in getting to our current state.

Oh yeah, it is difficult to prove how life began on Earth because it was so long ago and the conditions have changed so dramatically. However, scientists have done plenty of work on plausible and supported theories that relieve us of any need for a creator.

I particularly like this one:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_04


But there are dozens of explanations available:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+did+life+start&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS935US935&oq=How+did+life+start&aqs=chrome.0.0l8.5247j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If you want to base your thinking on empirical evidence, here


Mar 2, 2021, 3:04 PM

is a good place to start.

1. Correct, science has no explanation for the origin of life. More on that in a sec.

2. Yes, you did impose your moral standards. When you propose that God does not exist because a species died out - and that this is one of your more compelling evidences - you are imposing your moral standard. If God wants to let one of HIs created things die - that is the ultimate answer to your question - He can do so, which says nothing about his existence. If you think that is evidence against, it is because it doesn't match your moral standard. You can't say such a thing, then say you didn't say it. You might think God wouldn't 'make mistakes', but calling that a 'mistake' is a moral judgment, not a scientific one.

3. See #1 above (explanation to follow) and the existence of the universe.

As to where God came from, that discussion has nothing to do with whether God exists. There is no proposal that God came from anywhere, not because He did or didn't, but because He exists in a place or dimension that by definition is not understandable by us. One can certainly start from your bias, that God doesn't exist, and say, "Unless you tell me where He came from, I can't believe He exists", but that is an illogical starting point. If God exists and did create the universe, there would be no way for us to know what or where that existence is. We call it 'eternity', but that is a name we put on it. Of the pie of existence, we are limited to the physical fraction of it, however much or little that is. Evidence for His existence has to be limited to what we see and perceive here.

So, as to your desire for empirical data for assessing what you believe, I see two things in what you have said:

1. "Evolution is the most sound explanation for why species are extinct". Why would that be? By what empirical evidence do you say that evolution explains the source and end of all things? Showing that evolution exists, and naming it as the sole explanation for what you observe, is very close to saying evolution explains its own existence. You offer no empirical reason for thinking such a thing. It just parrots what you want to believe, that God doesn't exist. Which is fine, but don't call that empirical.

2. Your link proposes not a single thing, and doesn't claim to. It says, basically, "protein molecules formed into chains we call DNR". Or RNA, actually, I think. So? We all know that. 9th graders know that. If that is all it is, do it again. Oh, they can't. We don't even know what caused it to happen or how it happened. If you like empirical, here is what you need to know about the origin of life:

One of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists - Dr. Eugene Koonin - an atheist and author of several university textbooks, wrote a book titled "The Logic Of Chance". A part of it deals with the origin of life and the formation of the first rna. Bottom Line: he calculated the chance that random forces resulted in RNA, and concluded that it could not have happened in this universe. Not even close. The chance is 1/10 to the nth power (I cannot remember what n is, but will look it up if you want), but it turns out that n = more than the number of atoms in the universe. This is peer reviewed, not seriously questioned. His own stated conclusion is that life was not created here. An atheist said that.

To have it come from the outside, and it not be God, he proposed an infinite multiverse with infinite universes, providing the number of required chances and that one of those "somehow interacted with ours". An atheist proposed infinity, in an explanation for which there is of course no evidence.

And of course one might ask, "Okay, so if there is no evidence for an infinite multiverse, what is the evidence for God?" Of course that is the right question, and a great place to start. But "I don't like the way xyz happens" cannot be said to be anything but a moral judgment.

Stating a desire to rely on empirical evidence for one's beliefs is a wonderful thing. Additionally, one is very free to state philosophical views. Both lead to objective logic. But they are not the same. If you think evolution is data addressing whether God exists or not, you are actually using it as justification for a bias against God, though the empirical data regarding evolution actually points toward Him. All evolution starts somewhere downstream: rna and dna are already in existence. Once someone says, "Go get your own rna/dna", you're in another arena, one that won't allow presuppositions.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: If you want to base your thinking on empirical evidence, here


Mar 2, 2021, 7:14 PM

Tulsa

You are making a lot of absolute statements about what I am (or must be thinking). Perhaps I have not been clear (or perhaps you are taking one of my concerns and making it more central to my position that it really is)

Let me try to clarify.

I do not believe in god because I find his existence to be an extraordinary claim without anywhere near the extraordinary evidence necessary to support such a belief. That is all it takes for me - the lack of empirical evidence.

Now some people believe that he does exist and that he created all of the animals (as they now exist) on the planet. The evolutionary evidence calls this into serious question, but so does rational thinking. This is where my question comes in. If god created all of the animals, why would he create so many species (which I recognize as a human construct) that ultimately failed. There is no moral judgement here. The god to which you refer can do whatever he damnwell pleases. It is no skin off of my nose (especially since he doesn't exist). It is a rational question - why make all of these species if they could not last ?

You said, " He exists in a place or dimension that by definition is not understandable by us." This is a mythological dodge and certainly has no place in any discussion that claims to even try for empirical evidence and rational; thinking. You want to claim that a lack of evidence about where life came from originally is a weakness in my position but refuse to recognize my identical question about the origins of god points out the same weakness in your position.

The bottom line to your position is that you accept the concept of god/creator and you refuse to examine that belief for empirical evidence or rational thinking. You merely claim that humans cannot possibly understand. But you want to gaslight me by claiming that this is exactly what I am doing with evolution - despite the literal; mountains of supporting evidence that exists.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If you want to base your thinking on empirical evidence, here


Mar 2, 2021, 9:34 PM

All I can go on is what you say. You said one of the strongest evidences that God doesn't exist is that species die. I responded to it because it is illogical and cannot be supported. You made the claim that this was evidence, and it is up to you to support it in light of me pointing out that it is not. That is how evidence works. And you say I am the one not dealing with evidence? I am the one dealing with you, you are the one who is not.

No, pointing out that God lives outside the physical universe it not a dodge because it deals directly with the request. I was replying to the demand that one explain where God came from. If God does exist, and if he created the universe, that question would have no answer to us. It is an irrelevant question. It's like saying, "I will not believe your evidence of life on Mars (should there be any), until you tell me how it got there." The answer is, "Dude, there is no way to know that from here. If one assumes life is there, we couldn't, from here, know how it got there. All we can deal with here is the evidence that it is there."

Likewise, you can't tell me how life here got here, yet here we are, and here you are claiming to know how it didn't get here. For one claiming "empirical evidence" as often as you do, that is an very illogical position to take, and seems to be the pattern. You also seem to assume that if I show your claims of God not existing to be illogical - like the extinction one - I have to show evidence for God existing. No, I don't. I would, and could, if we were talking about that, but we are not.

I will be honest here: You refer very often to your reliance on "empirical evidence", but I never see you relying on any. Your comments are consistently philosophical, and defensive of a predetermined position, even talking a moral position about extinction, and presuming it to inform you about whether God exists. And that is your right: carry on, no problem from me, at all. But don't claim the high ground of "empirical evidence", when I just gave you all the empirical evidence necessary, citing peer reviewed data, to show that not you or anyone else can say there is a physical explanation for the origin of life. There's your empirical, introduced by me, not by you.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: If you want to base your thinking on empirical evidence, here


Mar 2, 2021, 9:53 PM

Tulsa,

You have created a box for atheists through which you can feel good about your perception of god. That is your choice.

I refuse to fit into your box. It is contrived. It assumes as realities, things that cannot be ascertained. And it presumes things about my perspective that I do not.

I do not understand your perspective - and you don't understand mine. I guess we will have to leave it at that.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is the same error as goddidit. No matter how impossible


Mar 2, 2021, 12:29 PM [ in reply to Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology. ]

a thing is, evolution did it because evolution is. An atheist is stuck with that explanation, so defends it in the face of impossibility.

Aside from all the problems with that line of thought, there is this one: Where and how did it start?

There is no proposed mechanism for the start of life. Not only can it not be replicated, it can't be explained. Not only can it not be explained, there is not even a defensible proposal.

And that's assuming all the necessary materials, for which there is not yet an explanation.

Except that evolution did it.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: This is the same error as goddidit. No matter how impossible


Mar 2, 2021, 2:00 PM

Tulsa

Evolution just is ?? Nothing about the tons of supporting evidence from geology, molecular biology, chemistry, anthropology, anatomy, biogeography, fossils, or direct observation ?

Where and how did it all start ? I think I have provided you with some info above. But if this question seems insurmountable to you, allow me this one: Where and how did god start ??

Again, a little basic research will provide you with plenty about proposed mechanisms for the start of life - these are certainly defensible proposals - with supporting evidence and thinking.

YOU may not believe that evolution is sufficient to account for life here on Earth - that is your prerogative. But just because you refuse to look at the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. And just because you refuse to accept the evidence does not mean that the theory is lacking.

Perhaps your perceptions could evolve a bit.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Who said evolution isn't happening? I didn't even imply such


Mar 2, 2021, 2:24 PM

a thing. All I said is that the atheist is stuck with that as the explanation for all observations, and lack of observations, because to the atheist evolution is. I did not say a single thing about whether species are adapting or not. That is actually a different subject entirely.

If you went straight to thinking I was saying such a thing, perhaps you are forcing all ideas into ideological biases, which you can then compare, one to another. As I said, that is simply justifying one's predetermined end point. if any view needs an evolutionary change it is that, is it not?

You often state, as you should, that empirical evidence should underpin beliefs. I am seeing the exact opposite of it in your relating of evolution to whether God exists. You are using it as a justification for what you have already decided, as you have offered no empirical data or reasoning for why evolution should imply God doesn't exist.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Hey, and if you love this thread, hang around.


Mar 2, 2021, 8:02 AM

We're gonna REALLY kill the vibe with a fun abortion talk this afternoon! Shows start every hour on the hour!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Only if Prod stops by!***


Mar 2, 2021, 8:05 AM



2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Biology was always my least favorite ology.


Mar 2, 2021, 8:18 AM

I much preferred physics and chemistry (I just realized those aren't ologies...). They are more math-based, which is my speed. Not enough numbers in biology, just boring words.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Ugh, not me man. Organic Chemistry was the straw


Mar 2, 2021, 8:25 AM

that broke the camel's back on my stint in pre-med.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Well, organic chemistry is the most bio- of chemistries


Mar 2, 2021, 8:29 AM

so it's the worst chemistry. I didn't particularly enjoy it either.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Ugh, not me man. Organic Chemistry was the straw


Mar 2, 2021, 8:35 AM [ in reply to Ugh, not me man. Organic Chemistry was the straw ]

The one C I got at Clemson was the second semester of organic chemistry. There wasn't enough adderall in the world to make that class palatable.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Same here (well, I got a couple more C's), but same


Mar 2, 2021, 8:41 AM

feelings about 2nd semester Organic chem. And I had Dr Appling, likely one of the coolest professors on campus, who had been on Letterman making a pickle glow via electricity, and I still hated it.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I think that may have been the lowest grade I got, too.


Mar 2, 2021, 8:42 AM [ in reply to Re: Ugh, not me man. Organic Chemistry was the straw ]

But it wasn't a C. #humblebragactivated

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Look man, you don't even want to know how good my GPA


Mar 2, 2021, 8:44 AM

at Clemson would have been if I had thought it was spiritually imprudent to talk to girls.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Look man, you don't even want to know how good my GPA


Mar 2, 2021, 8:45 AM

I'd have probably been valedictorian if wheat sodas and jazz cabbage hadn't been so easily accessible.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Coeds and booze.


Mar 2, 2021, 8:46 AM

Remove those two variables from the equation, I'm a millionaire by 25.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Coeds and booze.


Mar 2, 2021, 8:48 AM

Look, we all like to think we could be clemsonrulez08®, but it takes a special soul to put away that kind of guap at that age.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Apples and oranges


Mar 2, 2021, 8:49 AM

Remove coeds from the equation, he's never a millionaire.

HEYYYYY-OHHHHHHH

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Facts are facts


Mar 2, 2021, 9:03 AM

But here we are anyway

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsonrulez08.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Please forgive me, @IneligibleUser


LOL! Touche.***


Mar 2, 2021, 8:47 AM [ in reply to Look man, you don't even want to know how good my GPA ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's always been my thought as well. As a kid, a preacher


Mar 2, 2021, 8:38 AM

once asked, "If you're walking through a field and find a perfectly running watch on a stump - would you think it formed there? Or would you think someone put it there?"

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: That's always been my thought as well. As a kid, a preacher


Mar 2, 2021, 8:46 AM

Who or what is the watch in this analogy, and who/what the stump, and who/what the field?

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The watch is Life on Earth (basically) - the rest is just a


Mar 2, 2021, 11:22 AM

random place for the watch to be...

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: The watch is Life on Earth (basically) - the rest is just a


Mar 2, 2021, 7:17 PM

Joey

Could you make a similar analogy with a living thing. I think a watch is a lousy representation of life on earth.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You might be missing the point....


Mar 2, 2021, 7:40 PM

Obed mentioned that he couldn't believe folks thought this (Life on Earth with all of it's dependencies) was just an accident; that is wasn't created.

A watch is an intricate piece of machinery. So does someone believe it was put there or created naturally? (Hint - the answer is...it was put there. Like LoE was put here, not created naturally.)

Besides - I was retelling a story - and the story was about a watch.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: You might be missing the point....


Mar 2, 2021, 9:57 PM

Joey

I understood the point, but I don't think the watch makes for a good analogy. It is not a living evolving thing. It cannot change over time. I don't think it realistically helps you make your point. I don't think that life was "put" on this planet.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The basic point of the Methodist preacher was that life WAS


Mar 3, 2021, 8:58 AM

put here. So - you did get the point, you just don't agree with it.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: The basic point of the Methodist preacher was that life WAS


Mar 3, 2021, 9:35 AM

yep

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

But then you remember that cancer exists and go back to


Mar 2, 2021, 8:53 AM

wondering how there could be an intelligent, benevolent creator.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Why does benevolence have to enter the equation?


Mar 2, 2021, 8:57 AM

I mean, intelligence (by our standards) would be a given, but is a kid owning an ant farm benevolent to the ants? Maybe we're no different.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Because there's a link between intelligence and morality.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:06 AM

But if the creator of the universe were totally amoral, cancer's not a great example of intelligent design.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Ok, so one has to go into emotionless robot mode to


Mar 2, 2021, 9:15 AM

discuss this topic in the way I'm about to, but:

a) I'm not sure that link is incredibly well established. Intelligence is absolute. Morality is situational and relative. There are also incredibly sadistic people throughout history who were brilliant.

b) If population control were a goal, cancer would be an example of intelligent design.

c) I'm not sure how it's possible to internally share the beliefs that we don't understand the origins of time but that we do understand the reason cancer exists?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Ok, so one has to go into emotionless robot mode to


Mar 2, 2021, 9:26 AM

O

a) intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. As such, I am not sure that it is not relative and situational as well.

b) If population control were a goal, cancer would still be an unintelligent way to deal with it.
BTW, there are far more egregious examples of awful things in life that would make us
question the existence of some designing entity.

c) If one follows the science and believes in evolution, than there is no need to find a "reason"
for cancer. It is merely another way that life (of those cells) has found a way to survive -
sort of like all of these Covid mutations.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Ok, so one has to go into emotionless robot mode to


Mar 2, 2021, 9:29 AM [ in reply to Ok, so one has to go into emotionless robot mode to ]

A) I would question the intelligence of an intelligent creator who didn't know right from wrong or does know right from wrong, but doesn't care. But still, it's possible

B) Cancer's not an elegant way to control the population. We could also use inflammation as an example of supposedly ingenious biological functions run amok. My point is, in order to reach your conclusion about a creator, you have to accept the premise that biology is this magical, perfect system.

C) We do understand why cancer exists. What would have to be reconciled is how cancer could exist in a universe with an intelligent designer.

Spiritual belief resides in the gaps in our knowledge. It's only the things we can't explain that require the existence of a supernatural creator. And that's some serious hubris to think that the only explanation for the things we can't understand is that it's the work of the master of the universe.

























And by "master of the universe" I mean He-Man.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


LOL...hubris?


Mar 2, 2021, 9:41 AM

Seems like the complete and total opposite of hubris to me. Hubris would be assuming nothing could possibly be beyond what we can or will be able to explain, so a more intelligent and capable being than us is out of the question.

And I'm not arguing that creation is the only option. I'm saying that logically, it's more plausible, and that one saying that creation is impossible is no more logical than one saying it's the only possibility.















He-Man was really named Adam....COINCIDENCE??????

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


For the record, I've never said there's no creator.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:56 AM

I see no evidence to believe that one exists. Those are two different things.

The universe appearing fantastically complex to human beings is not evidence of a supernatural creator. Our wonder has more to do with the limits of our intelligence and perception.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It's not evidence....it points to probabilities.


Mar 2, 2021, 10:00 AM

And the whole point of this thread was that based on what we know now, a creator theory seems more likely to me than not. I understand that the converse may seem more likely to someone, and I was hoping for discussion to the contrary. Of course the discussion can only focus on what we know at this point in time because, well, duh.

Why do these discussions always devolve into absolutes...trying to paint someone into an all or nothing corner?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


How is this conversation devolving?


Mar 2, 2021, 10:16 AM

I expressly said a creator could exist, I just see no evidence that it does. If that sounds absolute to you, then I'm not sure what to say.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


When you strawmanned me with this one....


Mar 2, 2021, 10:19 AM

"It's only the things we can't explain that require the existence of a supernatural creator. And that's some serious hubris to think that the only explanation for the things we can't understand is that it's the work of the master of the universe."

Not sure if you were just trying to put a nice literary bow on the post, but incorrectly implying that I was saying that was the "only" explanation sort of sent the convo down a one way street, and hubris is quite the loaded word.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I was telling you what my opinion is, not attacking yours.


Mar 2, 2021, 10:33 AM

I think it's hubris to think that we as human beings are so smart that anything we can't understand must be the work of magic. My point of view is that human beings are totally insignificant in terms of the history of the universe.

In the past we didn't understand schizophrenia, so we chalked it up to demon possession. We couldn't prove it wasn't demon possession and we didn't know what else it could be, so... demons. Seems to me we use religion, belief, and spirituality to fill in our gaps of knowledge. I'm content to simply say I don't have an answer.
And just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Yes, but magic is a myopic and dismissive term too.


Mar 2, 2021, 10:36 AM

I'm allowing for far more than the supernatural. Being a sim is not magic. Being a virtual model railroad set for a far more vast entity is not magic. Helll, by that definition the big bang is magic.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


You keep taking one word I've said to dismiss my whole post.


Mar 2, 2021, 10:54 AM

First it was "benevolent" and now it's "magic." You said you wanted to have a discussion, but it sure doesn't seem like it. I never even said you were wrong.

FWIW, magic is a perfectly appropriate word for it. Magic is either something supernatural or an illusion made to look like something supernatural. Once we're arguing semantics, though, I think the conversation is effectively dead.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Dude, word choices matter.


Mar 2, 2021, 11:43 AM

It's not my fault if your phrasing makes you sound like you're scoffing at the opposing viewpoint...choose different words if you want to communicate more effectively.

If I'd said something like "I can't imagine the ego required to think there wasn't a creator" you would have had an edgier tone in your reply and you know it.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I don't think I've ever been personally offended here.


Mar 2, 2021, 12:48 PM

When people shit on yankees or New Jersey I just laugh it off. In P&R you have people calling liberals "libtards" and baby killers and communists. There's straight up invective and I'm not sitting here clutching my pearls. As far as political or religious disagreements go, it's kind of astonishing that someone would be deeply offended by the word "hubris." Admittedly I haven't been on P&R much lately, so maybe everyone's agreed to take a softer, gentler tone. I kinda doubt it, but I'll walk on egg shells from now on just in case.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I guess here's the diff......


Mar 2, 2021, 12:55 PM

If you'd have told me that I was sounding like an adversarial jerk in a Yankee discussion, you'd have at least gotten a "my bad" from me instead of me falling all over myself to tell you how wrong your interpretation of my comments were.

It's all good...we go way back and I'm fine. I just need to know if we're having a discussion or an argument up front....none of this passive aggressive weaving in and outshit.













And your RX8 is still an oil drinking POS.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I don't think I've ever been personally offended here.


Mar 2, 2021, 12:59 PM [ in reply to I don't think I've ever been personally offended here. ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Well yeah, isn't it obvious?


Mar 2, 2021, 1:01 PM

Trump's gone. The air's a little sweeter. My car runs just a little better. My kids love me just a little more. I'm a little less bald. I can recite Pi from memory just a few more decimal places. Discussions on P&R are just a little more meaningful.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


SEC - it just means more***


Mar 2, 2021, 1:41 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why does benevolence have to enter the equation?


Mar 2, 2021, 9:17 AM [ in reply to Why does benevolence have to enter the equation? ]

O

Perhaps we should not assume benevolence of a god, but it certainly seems like ALL religions do.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That has been explained, but atheists don't accept the


Mar 2, 2021, 12:58 PM [ in reply to But then you remember that cancer exists and go back to ]

explanation. And they don't have to. But the reverse, the denial of any possible explanation, puts the atheist in a very bad place, imo. The atheist demands that for God to exist He have a morality that fits they one they create, then they demand that imperfections be God's fault, not caused by the moral autonomy the atheist demands from which to judge God. "Can't be my fault if God created me." The "God doesn't exist because I don't like some things I see" requires circular reasoning.

Trying to philosophize God into or out of existence is a logical error to begin with. He exists, or does not, regardless of whatever we happen to think about what we observe. Such an exercise is merely justification for a bias for or against. It's a fun thing to do to support out beliefs about that, but if they are considered to be compelling evidence, as one poster does, we are creating beliefs to fit our comfort zones.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I don't get much up in arms about scientists


Mar 2, 2021, 8:55 AM

and their views, because they are staying in their field. At a certain point, the science stops, in terms of being able to observe. It doesn't bother me (not saying it bothers you) that "science says" there was no Creator. That's not something I would expect science to say.

I have always felt that Creation is a doctrine, not a science, and should be treated that way. I'm not a fan of trying to scientifically explain how creation happened; I don't believe it because I can explain it. And if we're trying to shoehorn it into a science, then that's a square peg in a round hole, to me.

(I know this is a different subject than origin of life, but I'm rambling)
I think the theory of evolution is brilliant...one of the most brilliant scientific theories ever devised. Boy, if I said that to most people I associate with, there'd be a special prayer meetin'. However, if and where that theory conflicts with the Biblical account of creation, then I believe what the Bible says, and God will have to explain it to me one day. I'm content with that.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Oh I completely get that.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:00 AM

I'm a Christian as well and definitely have those beliefs about the origins of life.

I was talking more generically though....I believe faith is required to believe as I do in that sense, and I can easily understand that it doesn't make sense to everyone. In the broader sense that someone or something put life as we know it into being, it seems like it only requires logic to see that, and I have a harder time understanding how someone rejects that.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


The prevailing attitude among the fundamental Christians


Mar 2, 2021, 9:04 AM [ in reply to I don't get much up in arms about scientists ]

who comprise most of my family and friends (and I am one) is like, "I've never heard anything so stupid as thinking we came from monkeys." That makes me want to pull my hair out. First off all, that's a strawman, because that's not what evolution says. And I don't think it's stupid, at all. I may not believe in what the theory says about how man came to be, but I think the seriousness of thought and brilliance of the scientific minds that came up with it is amazing.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm not a smart man, but I've taken statistics before


Mar 2, 2021, 8:59 AM

and I wonder what the odds are of hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary trail and error to get what works for life on earth

vs.

A benevolent being who nobody created, and created everything out of nothing but still frowns when you ########## and gives kids cancer because #### them.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


Why are you and Murc going down the Abrahamic God trail?


Mar 2, 2021, 9:02 AM

Open your mind...we aren't debating Christianity.

"hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary trail and error ".....what set that into motion?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Allah could apply here as well.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:05 AM

or all of the Hindu gods

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


Re: Why are you and Murc going down the Abrahamic God trail?


Mar 2, 2021, 9:11 AM [ in reply to Why are you and Murc going down the Abrahamic God trail? ]

"hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary trail and error ".....what set that into motion?

Maybe the same thing that gave birth to God.. any god.

The main difference is that science tries to use facts to form a hypothesis but still maintains they it may not be accurate and that's why we need more data.

Religion has little to no facts but claims that God just was and don't you dare question it.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


I'm not talking religion.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:16 AM

Unless you find religion in the fact that we could be a science fair project for some master race middle schooler somewhere in the cosmos.

You're hyper-focused on railing against religion. Re-read the initial post if you need to, but I'm discussing basic creation from any and all sources.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I'm not talking religion.


Mar 2, 2021, 7:25 PM

Obed,

I get that you are trying to discuss a broader topic than straight christianity - or even religion, but don't all of your other possibilities involved some sort of supernatural entity ??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Intelligent design doesn't have to mean an omnipotent God


Mar 2, 2021, 9:21 AM [ in reply to Re: Why are you and Murc going down the Abrahamic God trail? ]

You could take the pixel argument and extend it to we are living in a simulation for example.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yup, and that's crazy to me to consider,


Mar 2, 2021, 9:25 AM

but less crazy than complete and absolute nothingness, with zero aid or prodding whatsoever, becoming time, space, and the universe as we know it through nothing more than chaos theory.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I'm not a smart man, but I've taken statistics before


Mar 2, 2021, 3:24 PM [ in reply to I'm not a smart man, but I've taken statistics before ]

1. Very much against. Impossible, actually.

2. You are proposing God gives someone cancer. You are proposing that this is a bad thing, as opposed to any illness or death everyone faces.

The issue for you is, therefore:
1. What would you do if shown that the math doesn't add up for things being random chance?
2. What would you do if shown that one who defines a thing as good or bad places himself in a losing moral position from which he cannot recover?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It's a solid argument.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:00 AM

Reminds me of a book I read 15+ years ago where 40 scientists who are religious write short little essays about their beliefs:

https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Day-John-Ashton/dp/0890513767


military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Kinda the Descartes thing I guess. I think therefore I am


Mar 2, 2021, 3:18 PM

Way I see God is since there will always be unanswered questions, there must be a God. If for no other reason than there will always be unanswered questions. Hence he exists. He is the Alpha and the Omega. And since we have no clue about the beginning or the end, he exists. He is also the answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Kinda the Descartes thing I guess. I think therefore I am


Mar 2, 2021, 7:27 PM

Tiggity,

How about we just don't know - yet.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

But how many genders are there?


Mar 2, 2021, 9:16 AM

That is the question

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: But how many genders are there?


Mar 2, 2021, 9:20 AM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology.


Mar 2, 2021, 9:32 AM

Check out Frances Collins-The Language of God--Human Genome Project Leader and Fauci's boss.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology.


Mar 2, 2021, 10:18 AM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: I was helping my son study last night for biology.


Mar 2, 2021, 12:43 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I find myself drawn to this theory when I ponder the universe....


Mar 2, 2021, 12:52 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUOGxePBs50

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

A drunk will run a STOP sign, but a stoner will wait for it to turn green.


I don't partake of the herb anymore, but


Mar 2, 2021, 1:04 PM

I'm guessing this thread would be wayyyyyyy cooler and interesting if I did.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Who ever suggested that it was random?


Mar 2, 2021, 1:31 PM

Earth has been around 4-1/2 billion years. It took a billion years for the first cell to form and almost 3 more billion years until multi-cellular life happened. After that evolution took over and gave us many different life forms. 99% of all species are extinct.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Well, the opposite of random is controlled.


Mar 2, 2021, 1:35 PM

I admittedly could be wrong, but I suspect "controlled" isn't a word anti-creationists would use to describe the formation of the universe.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Well, the opposite of random is controlled.


Mar 2, 2021, 7:33 PM

obed

I think you are right - controlled in not a word I would choose to describe the process, but neither is chaos.

There is guidance - but it is simply - whatever works for survival and reproduction. Over billions of years this simple axiom has worked to produce astounding diversity and complexity of life. That's it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

who knows


Mar 2, 2021, 2:08 PM

The next step for science is the dive into consciousness. Just go look at the money Bigelow is throwing around to research the topic.


Chris Bledsoe (21st century Travis Walton) says that we live in a 'video game' like world. Meaning we are basically in a sand box with certain rules. This world could just be a pathway to the next dimension. Go smoke some DMT and you might see it. BTW Bledsoe posts some very interesting stuff on twitter.

Rumor is the 'truth' make Jimmy Carter cry. take it for what its worth.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

3 billion years and trillions of trials and errors


Mar 2, 2021, 3:14 PM

AND THIS IS THE BEST WE GOT!!!???

Woah.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


For me, complexity is not evidence enough...


Mar 2, 2021, 5:22 PM

to come to the conclusion that life has a plan to it or that it is structured. All complexity proves is the deficiency of our ability to understand or the difficulty of our understanding.

And those "complex systems" took billions of years to develop and sustain into what we see today. Billions of other complex systems died out or were not able to survive simply because they did not fit the best. I don't feel like that's much evidence for a "controlled" creation process (outside of randomness being a controller).

But if I could expand to a related question, Let's say there is some sort of controller/God/sim that points to our Universe and reality being non-random, then that must mean there is a purpose? What is the purpose of our existence? Of a mouse's existence? A black-hole?

To me, the only purpose I can think of that would make sense for all of those things to exist together that has any meaning is for them to just exist. They exist to exist. And if that's the case, then I would have to wonder about what the point of creating that reality would be for a God/creator/controller.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: For me, complexity is not evidence enough...


Mar 2, 2021, 7:35 PM

I just wanted to say that I wish our political discussions were this thought provoking and reasonable.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 106
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic