Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1871732 -

their wasnt new religious movement in the 70s because people that took LSD in the 70s new it was a drug they were taking. People in the beggening of civilization who had no science or math, took Psychedelics and thought they found the Kingdom of God.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1872009 -

Sclorch is one of the more brilliant minds on this forum. How many here will get their doctorate degree?

And that means what? Does an individuals level of education really play that considerable a role in the development of that individuals basic fundamental principles? Does Sclorch's level of education invalidate the credibility of my opinion? Are we measuring penis lengths here to?

There are Doctors who share my reasoning as well. Please don't ignore that fact. Are they crackpots? If so then a high degree of education means little to this debate IMHO.

No, but there is FREQUENT harm done by belief in unproven phenomenon.

So you would throw the baby out with the bath water as they say? And who are you trying to be exactly? Are you trying to save us from our own gullibility? I'll choose free will thank you.

There are questionable anecdotes which support this, not real evidence.

Questionable by who's standards? Yours?

I believe pretty well that Hawaii exists because I have seen overwhelming circumstantial evidence to suggest that it does. This is despite the fact that I have not actually been there.

Erroneous psychobabble you say? Show a little respect and stop avoiding my argument. Your criteria for proof sounds suspiciously like James Randi's. What makes you so sure that all phenomenon are reproducible in the lab? Do you know that for a fact?

Yet you make an issue of my pointing out those other possible explanations...

We are not dealing in obvious proofs here but degrees of evidence. If the evidence was overwhelming then it would not be unpopular to begin with and we would believe these things as surely as I believe that Hawaii exists. There are cases where the paranormal explanations are just easier to believe than the fraud explanations. I suspect you have not come across one. I doubt you'll find them watching Sightings or the X-Files.

It has nothing to do with "like" or "dislike". I would like for there to be life-after-death, telekinesis and current alien visitation. It is just that the "evidence" never stands up under scrutiny - simple as that.

So you are saying that witnesses to events that do stand up to scrutiny are lieing?

I have never observed elctron flow, but that fact that things are fabricated around this premise and ACTUALLY work is darn good evidence.

Astronomers now believe that the universe is filled with dark matter and energy due to circumstantial evidence which suggests this. Are you going to place the same degree of prejudice on these observations as well?

Nothing quite like a redundant statement.

There was nothing redundant about it.

I surely don't want to get into a line by lline flame war with you Swami. I actually enjoy reading your opinions although I do not agree with them all. Honestly it makes no difference to me what you believe.

The real issue here is personal experience. Apparently (and perhaps I'm assuming here although you have mentioned God) you have not had a spiritual experience. Otherwise you would probably not be so inclined to disregard circumstantial evidence to suggest post mortem existance.

But who am I to say that. Let me then ask you. Have you ever had an experience that you found difficult to explain without pulling out the old hallucination or coincidence explanations? If so then I suggest you owe it to yourself to not brush this off so quickly. If you have not then nothing I or anyone else will say or show you will convince you otherwise.

As an example of just how opinions (beliefs) waver in popularity consider the recent global warming debate. Several years ago the idea was considered fringe in the scientific community. Lately though it's become the complete opposite with scientists who are taking a stance against global warming taking lots of flack for their opinions.

Nothing is set in stone. Why limit yourself to safe conclusions?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1872239 -

If you really look at it, What isnt belief? Example. When we believe their is a Pluto its because the scientist have gave us logical evidence that it does, yet and still you have to believe that it does because you werent the one who sent that satelite that captured the picture. To you the evidance makes sense so you belive it. You cant ever be a hundred percent sure something exist for the cause of existance itself is unknown.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Spokesman]
    #1872316 -

That's the way I prefer to see things. Levels of probability based on experience. Beliefs are just our way of fitting all of these pieces together and are subject to change with experience.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1872396 -

Sclorch obviously could not understand my comment so I'll elaborate.

"Sclorch is one of the more brilliant minds on this forum. How many here will get their doctorate degree? "

And that means what? Does an individuals level of education really play that considerable a role in the development of that individuals basic fundamental principles? Does Sclorch's level of education invalidate the credibility of my opinion?
Guess you can't stay on track with your own comments. You stated that he was incapable of understanding you which is false.

Are we measuring penis lengths here to?
We?

Are you trying to save us from our own gullibility? I'll choose free will thank you.
I did not realize that free will and gullibility went hand-in-hand.

Questionable by who's standards? Yours?
Questionable by the standards of the scientific method which has worked remarkably well.

Erroneous psychobabble you say? Show a little respect and stop avoiding my argument.

"He has made this decision despite the fact that he has probably never considered the legitmacy of the evidence on a case by case basis and sees no need to unless it supports his already firmly planted emipirical observations. "

There is nothing to respect about this false assumption. Neither was there an argument made in this statement.

Your criteria for proof sounds suspiciously like James Randi's.
There is nothing suspicious about it.

What makes you so sure that all phenomenon are reproducible in the lab?
This is only about the thousandth time that mind's like yours have brought up this strawman argument which I never said.

There are cases where the paranormal explanations are just easier to believe than the fraud explanations.
This is a fact or an opinion? Misinterpretation and conclusion-jumping (as you have shown by your incorrect assessments of me) are the more likely candidates than fraud or mysticism.


I surely don't want to get into a line by lline flame war with you Swami.
Uh huh. Sure you don't. That is why you make non-stop comments
about my history and persona and remarks like this:

I doubt you'll find them watching Sightings or the X-Files.

Honest reply if you can: Was this comment supposed to add content to the discussion - Yes or No? Or were you fishing for a more emotional response?

So you are saying that witnesses to events that do stand up to scrutiny are lieing?
Huh? I did not use lying and witnesses in the same sentence, but once again you feel the need to make up words that I did not say.

Astronomers now believe that the universe is filled with dark matter and energy due to circumstantial evidence which suggests this. Are you going to place the same degree of prejudice on these observations as well?
Dark matter is a heavily argued THEORY. Many here talk of esoterica such as UFOS, ESP and telekinesis as FACT. Can you discern the difference?

"Nothing quite like a redundant statement. "

There was nothing redundant about it.

"ignorance of the unknown" is certainly redundant. Ignorance is that which is unknown.

The real issue here is personal experience. Apparently (and perhaps I'm assuming here although you have mentioned God) you have not had a spiritual experience. Otherwise you would probably not be so inclined to disregard circumstantial evidence to suggest post mortem existance.
*Yawn* More ad hoc assessment...

But who am I to say that.
No one.

Have you ever had an experience that you found difficult to explain without pulling out the old hallucination or coincidence explanations?
So what if I did? Because I did not understand it, instead of jumping to the hallucination theory, I should jump to the angel or alien or (?) theory instead? How about merely saying I do not understand.

If so then I suggest you owe it to yourself to not brush this off so quickly.
Why not? So far every single deeply researched phenomenon (that could be researched) has been shown to have a prosaic explantion: from the Bermuda Triangle to pyramid power to the Marfa Lights to The Phoenix Lights to...

As an example of just how opinions (beliefs) waver in popularity consider the recent global warming debate. Several years ago the idea was considered fringe in the scientific community. Lately though it's become the complete opposite with scientists who are taking a stance against global warming taking lots of flack for their opinions.
Why? Because of mounting EVIDENCE, not anecdotes.

Nothing is set in stone.
Many things are "set in stone". I would as usual make a large wager to back up my position.

Why limit yourself to safe conclusions?
Huh?






--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1872512 -

So what if I did? Because I did not understand it, instead of jumping to the hallucination theory, I should jump to the angel or alien or (?) theory instead? How about merely saying I do not understand.

What exactlly do you think I'm talking about?

I am not trying to push a belief on you. This is a discussion about independant verification of observed evidence.

Why? Because of mounting EVIDENCE, not anecdotes.

So you are saying the scientists that came out in favor of the global warming theory before it was popular are gullible fools?

"ignorance of the unknown" is certainly redundant. Ignorance is that which is unknown.

ig?no?rance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-ns)
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

What are you talking about?

Many things are "set in stone". I would as usual make a large wager to back up my position.

That is an arrogant assumption. I take it you do NOT believe in a God, otherwise you would not make this claim.

I did not realize that free will and gullibility went hand-in-hand.

You apparently failed to understand the intent of that statement then. Perhaps Sclorch is smarter than you.

Why not? So far every single deeply researched phenomenon (that could be researched) has been shown to have a prosaic explantion: from the Bermuda Triangle to pyramid power to the Marfa Lights to The Phoenix Lights to...

Honest reply if you can: Was this comment supposed to add content to the discussion - Yes or No? Or were you fishing for a more emotional response?

Huh? I did not use lying and witnesses in the same sentence, but once again you feel the need to make up words that I did not say.

Stay with me now Swami if you can. You stated that "that the "evidence" never stands up under scrutiny". I disagree.

There are anecdotal cases which can not be easily eliminated. Your statement ignores those cases. You tell me how you explain these eyewitness accounts if they are not lying? Hallucination again, pychological disorders? What about accounts with multiple eyewitnesses?

To brush these off or even place them in the same category as pyramid power or the marfa lights is simple minded.

Why don't you pick on my grammer or spelling next. Perhaps that will make your case. Otherwise let's just agree to disagree.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873435 -

Hmmm... where to start?

1. On eyewitnesses:
When I was a little boy (about six), my mother took me to the fair.  There, I saw my first magic show.  I was awestruck that a (wo)man was able to do such amazing things... it had to be magic.
*You don't have to be lying or hallucinating to jump to conclusions based on an observational error.

2. ...is ignorant of the unkown.
Ignorance is a state of not knowing.  Not knowing the unknown is redundant.

3. On throwing the baby out with the bath water:
Sometimes a baby just isn't in every tub of crud. :wink:

4. On experts and academic authority:
All assertion and no hard evidence undermines one's educational status in my book.  I've got no use for quacking clerics.

5. On Global Warming theories:
One summer it's dry as hell, then next it's wetter than ever.  One winter we get brownouts and the next we get frost.  I haven't a clue as to what any of this means... but in my opinion, it doesn't definitively point to anything.
Here's a good question for the global warming advocates:
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe the Earth's climate goes through natural cycles (of irregular lengths) of warming and cooling?
I wonder if the dinosaurs bitched about global cooling.
___________________________________________

I'm not hitting everything... but the Yawn Factor is creeping up on me.     


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Sclorch]
    #1873487 -

Sclorch said:
Here's a good question for the global warming advocates:
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe the Earth's climate goes through natural cycles (of irregular lengths) of warming and cooling?
I wonder if the dinosaurs bitched about global cooling.



Yeah, I always thought this too. Of course, they always claim that it is our chemicals that are bringing about the change. I mean, it was dust in the atmosphere from the meteor strike that brought that ice age..

Of course, I guess the issue is us putting the chemicals up there in the first place, maybe we are changing the ozone for the worse..
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Sclorch]
    #1873547 -

Sclorch said:
Hmmm... where to start?

1. On eyewitnesses:
When I was a little boy (about six), my mother took me to the fair.  There, I saw my first magic show.  I was awestruck that a (wo)man was able to do such amazing things... it had to be magic.
*You don't have to be lying or hallucinating to jump to conclusions based on an observational error.

Time and time again a scenario like this is brought up to dispute anything paranormal.  You miss the real point.  The experiences are unexplained.  If you mean to tell me that all spontaneous events of paranormality are the product of parlor tricks then you are making sweeping assumptions.  Not all cases of paranormality have been solved even under intense scrutiny by investigators and magicians alike.  Still you ignore this fact.

2. ...is ignorant of the unkown.
Ignorance is a state of not knowing.  Not knowing the unknown is redundant.

Since this comment seems to be such a sticking point for you guys (and I'm not surprised since you have nothing more to offer on the debate itself) I'll paraphrase for you.

Ignorant = unaware

Swami is unaware of the existence (to help you along) of the unkown.

I say this because he consistently fails to aknowledge this.  He is an empiricist as you appear to be.  Empiricists do not believe in that which they can not see, taste, smell, hear, or touch.

3. On throwing the baby out with the bath water:
Sometimes a baby just isn't in every tub of crud. :wink:

Yet more assumptions.

4. On experts and academic authority:
All assertion and no hard evidence undermines one's educational status in my book.  I've got no use for quacking clerics.

Well apparently you are the authority.  When's the book coming out? 

It should be noted that most theories on the fringes of science do not come prepackaged with hard evidence to support them.  I doubt you would be so quick to dispute these beliefs though.

5. On Global Warming theories:
One summer it's dry as hell, then next it's wetter than ever.  One winter we get brownouts and the next we get frost.  I haven't a clue as to what any of this means... but in my opinion, it doesn't definitively point to anything.
Here's a good question for the global warming advocates:
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe the Earth's climate goes through natural cycles (of irregular lengths) of warming and cooling?
I wonder if the dinosaurs bitched about global cooling.

And this is relevant to the argument how?  I merely brought this up as an example of how beliefs change with experience, not to argue about global warming. 
___________________________________________

I'm not hitting everything... but the Yawn Factor is creeping up on me.

Well isn't that cute.  Responding to these weak arguements was pretty damn boring to me as well.  Especially considering you offered nothing new to the debate.  If all you have to offer is arrogant assumptions and condescending rhetoric then please don't bore me either.  You have done little if anything to counter my arguments.

Perhaps if you ignore them long enough people will lose interest and move on.  Relegating all anecdotal evidence to the looney category is simple minded.

Only God itself could be that sure.     

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873580 -

Since we're on the topic.

I asked Swami if he had ever had an experience that he could not explain through ordinary means. He conveniently avoided answering this question. His answer is very relevant to the debate and I am very curious as to the answer. I do not see what harm an honest answer to this question could cause him.

If Swami has had an experience like this then his anecdote makes him an independent verifier to observed evidence of a paranormal nature. This is especially significant if his experience is similar to others' experiences.

Both Sclorch and Swami seem intent on pigeon holing me into some belief system which I can not defend. Let me get the debate back on track to avoid any futher misconceptions.

Swami stated in his original post:

If an idea is valid, another human being with the same data and similar circumstances should be able to come to the same conclusion; but apparently one cannot as so many of these "concepts" have no substance except as passed down cultural myths.

This is inaccurate. Many of these concepts are NOT the result of unsubstantial cultural myths. They are the result of anecdotal independant verification from witnesses like you and I that have had personal experiences which can not be explained using the empirical model. In addition to this there are cases which are far less easy to ignore.

You have stated your opinion and I have given you examples which challenge this opinion. You have answered this challenge by summarily ignoring these examples with the arrogant presumption that all cases of paranormality are bogus due to a social stigma that has been attached to the field. If neither one of you are willing to consider them with an ounce of objectivity then you are both guilty of ignorance. No amount of sarcasm at my expense will mask that fact.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873629 -

Quote:
The Runki's leg case involved a drop in communicator that provided verifiable evidence of his (Runki) previous existance. Check it out for specifics.


I didn't find much info on the Web about the Runki missing leg case, but according to this account, there were people in the village who knew about the leg and where it was located:

Runki, at times appearing as a clear apparition, kept reiterating that he was looking for his leg. When asked where it was, he said it had been in the sea because his body had washed ashore after a shipwreck, but now it was "in Ludvik's house." The person named "Ludvik" had just joined the group of mediums before the messages from Runki began. He had no knowledge of a leg in his house. But when elders in the community where Ludvik's house stood were questioned, they remembered that a leg of a tall man had washed ashore years before and, for some unknown reason, had been put into the interior wall of the house now occupied by Ludvik. Ludvik and the others searched for the leg and, in fact, found it in the wall of Ludvik's house; it was the leg of a tall man.

No ghostly survival after death and no paranormal information transfer is needed to explain this. Of course, if ghosts, magic, divine intervention, or Star Trek technology from the year 2500 is invoked, then anything can be neatly explained without bothering about pesky details or the possible complexities of the situation.

The only problem is that there is no way to differentiate between the infinitude of such fanciful explanations. Unless, of course, if one of the fantasy explanations can produce a genuine systematic effect that is unique for that particular explanation. Then it rises above the others in significance. Unfortunately, none of the paranormal theories have so far been able to provide us with systematic effects of this kind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1873642 -

The only problem is that there is no way to differentiate between the infinitude of such fanciful explanations. Unless, of course, if one of the fantasy explanations can produce a genuine systematic effect that is unique for that particular explanation. Then it rises above the others in significance. Unfortunately, none of the paranormal theories have so far been able to provide us with systematic effects of this kind.


Through independent verification.

This is not a question of absolutes. This is a question of degrees of probability based on all evidence.

If you were to have an experience which could not be explained by the experts do you think anyone would find you credible enough? What exactlly would it take?

Criminals are sentenced to death on anecdotal evidence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873665 -

Just out of curiosity, how many here have had an experience that they can not explain without using tha hallucination or coincidence explanations?

I honestly don't think I've ever come across someone who hasn't had a personal experience or at least a story from a close relative.

Is everyone crazy? I honestly don't think spirituality and science are incompatible. We'll just have to wait and see.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1873680 -

Quote:
I saw some westerners turning towards Eastern mysticism, but no great religion came out of the psychedelic movement.


Well, some attempts were made. Leary and Alpert founded the League for Spiritual Discovery and had it officially registered as a religion. But the whole psychedelic movement went underground when psychedelic drugs were made illegal, so it became very difficult to organize a psychedelic religion. I can only think of two exceptions: the Deadheads, if they count as a religion, and the brazilian ayahuasca churches (Santo Daim? and Uniao do Vegetal). The ayahuasca churches are older than the 60s psychedelic movement, but I think it's likely that their expansion outside Brazil has been accelerated by the introduction of psychedelic drugs into U.S. and European culture.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1873689 -

Interesting exchange here:

DoctorJ: Don't you know any programmers that love E and Acid? I sure do!!!

Swami:..Please show your study linking occupation to LSD usage and subsequent contributions to mankind.

Swami (earlier post on societal change from psychedelic movement):On the negative side, as a youth I used to hitchhike and pick up strangers all the time. Practically nobody does either now.

Hey Swami, where's *your* study?
Sounds pretty anecdotal to me!


--------------------
I am what Willis was talkin' bout.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873715 -

Quote:
This is not a question of absolutes. This is a question of degrees of probability based on all evidence.


Suppose you argue that the messages from Runki actually originated in a blob of ectoplasm that contained Runki's soul after his death. Another person argues that the messages were beamed into the brain of the medium by the starship Enterprise which had previously travelled backwards through time and had been a witness to Runki's death and the subsequent burial of the missing leg in the house.

How do you establish the degree of probability for these two explanations?

And then I come along and argue that the information about Runki and his leg was there all the time, and it was transmitted to the medium through a physical channel, but the exact details of this are still unknown. Is this a stronger or a weaker explanation than the other two, given what we know about the case?

Edited by Rhizoid (09/02/03 09:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1873731 -

Quote:
But the whole psychedelic movement went underground when psychedelic drugs were made illegal, so it became very difficult to organize a psychedelic religion.



Good point! Kind of hard to start a serious movement when the government persecutes so severely.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873769 -

Criminals are sentenced to death on anecdotal evidence.

Besides being completely irrelevant to the topic; it is not even a good analogy. A witness saying "I saw John Doe leaving his ex-wife's house with a bloody knife," is quite a bit different than the witness interpreting the event and adding, "I knew he was possessed by the devil."

I wonder if you can tell the difference.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873772 -

Empiricists do not believe in that which they can not see, taste, smell, hear, or touch.

OK, but then you state that "way to differentiate between the infinitude of such fanciful explanations" [in response to Rhizoid] is:

Through independent verification.

But this independent verification comes through the senses, does it not?

As per usual, you want it both ways.




--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1873790 -

I honestly don't think I've ever come across someone who hasn't had a personal experience or at least a story from a close relative.

Is everyone crazy?

How many people falsely believe that John Edward really contacts the dead? How many people falsely believe that there is some truth to astrology?

I think you under-estimate the gullibility of the average Joe.

You equate an unusual story with an unusual explanation. Here is a typical one: "I woke up suddenly in the middle of the night and knew something was wrong." Did the story-teller know at this point which one of a billion possible somethings was wrong? No! The story-teller continues, " I later found out that my father died at the exact same time that I woke up." The dots were NOT connected until the next day, yet the storyteller (who was NOT lying about waking up at 3AM) now believes he had a psychic experience.

Do you see the difference between doubting the storyteller's conclusion and doubting the events surrounding the story?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Albert Einstein quoted sleepy 2,119 6 11/02/07 10:30 PM
by Grok
* Einstein's Internal Conflict
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 4,635 32 06/06/03 01:51 PM
by Zero7a1
* Albert Einstein
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Swami 7,915 95 12/11/04 06:53 AM
by Annom
* formal education versus studying independently Epigallo 2,002 19 08/19/08 08:22 AM
by Epigallo
* Einstein was smart enough to believe in himself not God
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 hitch hiker 8,505 83 05/30/08 10:31 AM
by backfromthedead
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,281 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid
* Einstein: Religion and Science trendalM 1,705 13 01/25/04 09:15 AM
by trendal
* Einstein palmersc 1,470 13 05/31/06 09:09 PM
by Schwammel

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,433 topic views. 2 members, 230 guests and 24 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.