|
don't try it, it's futile.
also note, beliefs that have been reinforced over a long period of time only change because of
1) a dramatic event that shifts one's world view
2) another time period where different experiences/environment and reflection gradually transform one's viewpoints
it's unlikely that starting a debate with her will be effective in any way beyond getting a sense of how deep-seated her views are
|
Explain it to her, but don't be a dick about it. Be respectful and understanding. If anything, you'll learn more about her as a person. If she comes around, congrats, you enlightened someone about one of the greatest marvels of science, and you both gain a mutual interest.
If she sticks to bible-thumping, while then you have to ask yourself if you really want to date someone who is so close-minded towards science. For the sake of your relationship, I hope she's really hot ^^
|
On December 28 2011 16:52 Battleaxe wrote:
I'm adding a new abbreviation to my pre game ladder chat. "gl hf kgh"
Keep getting head > explaining evolution
Seriously though I'd leave it alone unless it becomes a real problem in your relationship.
It's not a dealbreaker  I love her to death regardless. I think I'll just hf kgh
Can we please not have an evolution debate on my blog o.o for the sake of my problem, just let it be.
|
first i think it's great that you guys are together in the first place. I always brushed off an issue like this because i thought to myself that I probably wouldn't get along well with someone who had drastically different world views anyways. You've shown me that's not always true though.
all i can say is that if it was me, i would probably either try to persuade her end the relationship. Not being close-minded, but thats something that would cause huge problems down the road. Will her parents accept you if you don't accept creationism? Are you really going to teach your kids (assuming we get even that far...) that creationism is true? I guess if you know that it's casual then it won't cause any big problems, but just make sure you don't waste your time 
|
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly,
nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc
you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
|
On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD
First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you.
@Yoshi:
So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf.
At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
|
I remember this girl I used to know who tried to convince me that the Earth is 6000 years old, even though she was studying Civil Engineering and was being taught about how it takes rocks millions of years to develop. It is a tricky situation because you can't really reason with them using scientific evidence. I totally agree with DarkPlasmaBall. You don't "believe" in evolution, you either accept it or don't.
@Yoshi, Scientific theory is different from what we would consider a 'theory'. The normal use of the word 'theory' it refers to guessing, conjecture, an opinion or speculation about something. The scientific equivalent to what we would call a theory is actually a hypothesis. A scientific theory is something that is already well-supported by empirical evidence. A hypothesis is an idea/proposal that is still unproven.
Just found a great quote by H.J. Muller
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.
|
Try showing her Nature Documentries like "Planet Earth" just to get her more interested in the subject. Normally, once someone is legitimately interested in nature, they find the facts out for themselves.
|
yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
Lategame is very dependent upon your opponents composition. Sometimes, as with checkers, tic ta toe, and my mother, the only possible way to win is by forcing a tie. :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_biology_makes_sense_except_in_the_light_of_evolution
gl hf gg
|
|
|
On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory.
It's important to note that the only things that can actually be "proven" with absolute certainty are in mathematics and logic, because you can write formal, abstract proofs. Science doesn't work in this manner, but evolution is as well-proven as science can possibly offer.
In the same way that scientists "believe" in gravitational theory and the atomic theory, yes, the word "belief" exists. But this level of belief is not the same level as belief in Creationism, because (as I said before), they are not on par with one another. Evolution (and other scientific theories) are indeed well-established with empirical evidence (as you pointed out), but Creation stories are based on supernatural claims and religious faith.
I only want to be very careful when we talk about "belief", as it's very easy to equivocate and misconstrue between "believing" in science (for rational, empirical reasons) and "believing" in religious, faith-based claims. They are not the same, so I prefer to use two different words altogether ("accepting" science vs. "believing" religion, as explained beforehand).
On December 28 2011 16:50 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote:
so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life. Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution. you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level,
I agree with you, and considering how successful and spot-on evolutionary theory has been, I don't see any other hypothesis coming around anytime soon ^^
|
On December 28 2011 17:03 Fishgle wrote:
yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
Lategame is very dependent upon your opponents composition. Sometimes, as with checkers, tic ta toe, and my mother, the only possible way to win is by forcing a tie.
gl hf gg
LOL epic post. i think this is the best course of action for the OP
|
On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says
Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different.
Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently.
You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact.
Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt?
Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally.
On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up.
Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point 
On December 28 2011 17:04 dronebabo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, least not intentionally, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. this is so wrong
this is so wrong
On December 28 2011 17:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. It's important to note that the only things that can actually be "proven" with absolute certainty are in mathematics and logic, because you can write formal, abstract proofs. Science doesn't work in this manner, but evolution is as well-proven as science can possibly offer. In the same way that scientists "believe" in gravitational theory and the atomic theory, yes, the word "belief" exists. But this level of belief is not the same level as belief in Creationism, because (as I said before), they are not on par with one another. Evolution (and other scientific theories) are indeed well-established with empirical evidence (as you pointed out), but Creation stories are based on supernatural claims and religious faith. I only want to be very careful when we talk about "belief", as it's very easy to equivocate and misconstrue between "believing" in science (for rational, empirical reasons) and "believing" in religious, faith-based claims. They are not the same, so I prefer to use two different words altogether ("accepting" science vs. "believing" religion, as explained beforehand). Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 16:50 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 Coramoor wrote:
so what you're saying is you support intelligent design? or a form of creationism that doesn't even have a name(under the assumption that mainstream creationism is what you said was incorrect in your first post? i'm leaning towards the latter
btw your use of the word or for atheists or evolutionists is somewhat odd, by default being an atheist means accepting evolution because it is the only science based theory that exists regarding organisms, indeed you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution,
btw from my understand the only thing that seperates you from say intelligent design, is that you say that god makes each individual creature, where as intelligent design says that god gave the DNA code for creatures to exist, or something like that, which could be interpreted as the same thing in a broad sense Meh. I suppose you could (hypothetically) disagree with the explanation of evolution because you think there are flaws, and posit your own scientific (non-religious) explanation for the origin of species and diversity of life. Although that being said, I personally don't know of any atheists who disagree with evolution. you certainly could, but at this point, 2011, i think with all the research that has been done, if there was any serious doubts about the science, then an alternate theory would've been put forward, with all the research we currently have and all the technology that exists i think you'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who has an alternate theory at the base level, I agree with you, and considering how successful and spot-on evolutionary theory has been, I don't see any other hypothesis coming around anytime soon ^^
Oops, I may have made a mistake. I was saying that in science, evolution cannot be called proven, but I mixed it up. It can be scientifically proven, but it cannot be proven as in the... you know.
However, I still don't understand why I cannot call it "believing in evolution". Well, like you've said, you simply would like to use different terminology to show the different ways that you "accept" or "believe" in something, but I would like to use the term "belief" my own way -- accepting something that is not proven (not the scientifically proven kind of definition) as a fact or to be true.
|
On December 28 2011 17:03 Fishgle wrote:
yo OP, start by agreeing with her that evolution is false, this will ward off cheese and lend you opponent unable to finish the game quickly, before you can carry out your long term game plan. transition into agreeing that evolution is just a theory. From there, expand into the safe "Nothing really has a thorough explanation" midgame composition, defending from harass with a few "this is the evidence i have," while being wary of word bending.
Whether you choose to have a Pasta, InvisiBrony, or Russel Teapot based army is your choice. But you must use one of those. The Agnostic vs Creationist matchup relies heavily upon those, but don't overmake them and transition out quickly or your whole game will be hardcountered and you'll throw away a won game.
Lategame is very dependent upon your opponents composition. Sometimes, as with checkers, tic ta toe, and my mother, the only possible way to win is by forcing a tie.
gl hf gg
5 stars. Solid advice right here. Also, be careful of "first mover" timing pushes mid-game, you'll have to counter with "who moved the first mover" harass to creating openings for your Pasta, Invisibrony or teapot army.
|
If it bothers you too much, you can suggest that believing in God does not have to mean that evolution and the age of the universe is not a fact. Science does not have to interfere with religious belief, if everyone just chills out. God is described as being omniscient, so God would have known everything that would happen, from the very first moment he had set up the universe, its properties and physical laws, which lead to humans evolving on this planet. You can just present that as an alternative to the creationist stories and not argue.
If you follow that train of thought and want to argue, the people trying to pretend the world is only 6000 years old can actually be seen as being blasphemous, as they do not want to acknowledge and love the actual world created by God.
|
On December 28 2011 17:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different. Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently. You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact. Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt? Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up. Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
|
On December 28 2011 17:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Coramoor wrote:On December 28 2011 16:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. Just to be clear, note that evolution isn't a "belief" in the same way that Creationism is. It's not Creationists. vs. Evolutionists. That would imply that there are equal grounds of evidences or interpretation (as I believe you were suggesting earlier). That's not the case. Evolution is a scientific and natural explanation. You accept evolution, not believe it, because it's based on empirical evidence and facts. Creationism is a religious and supernatural explanation. You personally believe it because it's based on your faith. (Of course, there are countless Creation stories... you happen to agree with the Genesis Creation one because you're a Christian and you'd prefer the Bible's explanation. Okay, but that's not what the evidence- or the scientific community who are the experts in studying how humans came into existence- agrees with.) Sorry but I certainly did not imply that, and do not see how it is wrong to say it is a belief. In terms of science, evolution is a theory, because it cannot be proven for every single case in the existence of the universe, because obviously that would be ridiculous. If it's not proven, then it is a theory, meaning that even though it is well established and there is a lot of evidence, there is still a chance, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Therefore, you believe in a theory. you're messing with semantics, nothing in existence can be proven to be correct 100% of the time, special cases exist for a lot of things, gravity operates differently around a blackhole if i remember correctly, nothing is 100%, but evolution has proven true in countless studies and experiments, and until we find a case where it doesn't, we can call it a fact and even then it'll be a fact with this special case, say quantum mechanics to relatively or something like this, relatively works for our everyday lives, but you need quantum mechanics to explain stuff at the speed of light etc you accept god as a fact of life, you accept the bible as 100% true, you can't prove it to me, so where is your doubt for anything the bible says Hey, hey, whoa. The way I learned it in school is that evolution is a theory. By DEFINITION of the scientific definition of the term "theory", evolution is a theory because it cannot be proven in every single case. I'm just being correct here, at least according to my textbooks. Maybe textbooks elsewhere are different. Those are proven true WITHIN a study or experiment; they are not universal. To be universal means that it is proven true. That is how I learned it. You may have learned it differently. You can call it a fact, others may call it a fact, I won't call it a fact unless it' s a fact. Hey, you starting to hate on me or something? I do not understand the elitism in your tone. Did I say that I accept god as a fact? Did I say the bible is 100% true? Who says I can't prove it to you, and when did I even claim that? Who says I don't have doubt? Being a christian is to have a religion, for me it is not believing in a "fact". Therefore, your argument is baseless. Can you prove to me that evolution is a fact? No, you can only prove it is a theory, because you cannot prove it universally. Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 17:00 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 28 2011 16:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Every person in every relationship is going to have flaws of different severities. Assess whether or not this is a dealbreaker for you. (If you're a biologist, it probably is; if you have no interest in science, it probably isn't. You're probably somewhere in between.) If it's a dealbreaker, see if you can persuade her. If you can't, then maybe she's not the right person for you. Just keep in mind that she may have more good qualities than bad ones. On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I'm a creationist and I just want to stress the importance that a lot of atheists or evolutionists don't realize. Please don't ever use the term evolutionists -.-' Who are evolutionists? Biologists? Scientists? The experts when it comes to studying this topic? Oh okay... but please don't use that other term; it's rather silly. And atheism (or any religion or lack thereof) has nothing to do with accepting scientific fact/ theory. I just mean anyone who believes in evolution, I don't mean people who only believe in that, and I don't necessarily mean atheists. That is why I said atheists "or" evolutionists. Since the OP seemed not to be neither a nonevolutionist nor a creationist, both the terms atheist and evolutionist applied to him. On December 28 2011 16:30 Shaetan wrote:On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
My view is that that "interpretation" is wrong. Each species is still unique in their own way. Just because, for example, humans were more like monkeys back then, it does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same thing, therefore they are still UNIQUE. In this case, they are different because they followed different paths of evolution, and that is why there are monkeys today and humans today.
This is confusing. Can you explain it in more detail? On December 28 2011 16:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I think this carbon dating is wrong because there was the Great Flood, and before that, there was no evidence that there was precipitation in the world. After the flood, the atmosphere probably changed significantly, and that is probably why the carbon dating is wrong (if it is).
So before the flood (a biblical event) there was no precipitation in the biblical world? in the real world? I don't think there will be much evidence for either of those but I may be misunderstanding. Atmospheric conditions should not alter carbon dating results, and those are only valid for about 60,000 years. Other metrics are used for older stuff (I assume) Sorry I meant in the biblical world. Since the rainbow after the flood is supposed to be like the first rainbow and all that, and a few other points of evidence (or maybe as little as 1 lol) which I have forgotten, that hint towards precipitation not occurring before the flood. I don't know of any evidence in the real world, lol. Hm, I'm not sure I understand the second part. Specifically about the 60,000 years. I thought I remember from my textbooks they kept saying they used mainly carbon dating, maybe not for the old stuff? I'm not sure how the atmosphere (well I mean just the earth in general if that is the wrong thing to say) can't affect carbon dating, maybe it can't. I haven't really thought of this but I read some arguments a while back, that I can't remember xD I think it's a bit hard to explain about the evolution part, for me at least. So lets say, back in the past, our modern human species was different back then; we've changed now, branched off, and so we are our own species now. Some of the other branches include the neanderthals and such. And that ancestor, from which we branched off from, used to be the same species as the ancestor of monkeys today. And lets say that ancestor was created by god, however that might have happened. That is the form that god created them, and they evolved from there. Over time they evolved into other things, leading to gorillas, monkeys, humans, today, etc. And in other branches in the animal kingdom, there are all these species that were ancestors to the species we see today. However, when God created them, all these ancestor species were different from each other. They were in different genus perhaps, etc. etc. Now, creationists will say that if humans came from an ancestor that was a different species from humans of that of today, we are the same thing as monkeys or gorillas, and they will say that obviously it is not true; humans are not monkeys, therefore evolution must be not be occurring because for humans and monkeys to be the same means that god didn't create life uniquely. Being created uniquely and not being able to change or evolve over time are two different things. I hope that helped...? xD First off at OP. Evolution has been shown to occur at the micro-scale in E. coli and (I believe) other bacteria in laboratories. Not sure if that will be helpful for you. @Yoshi: So Noah and co. and everyone before them lived in a world without rain? wtf. At the 2nd point. Sure you could believe it, but there is no scientific evidence to back it up. Hm im not sure what you mean about the 2nd point
The god made human ancestors and ape ancestors that are unique but not the same. No evidence for that.
|
And re: evolution being a theory
In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by scientific organizations a definition such as the following may be promulgated.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[10]
According to this definition, a theory must be well supported by evidence. Furthermore, the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models. Consumers of science may find the above definition useful when evaluating the validity and/or efficacy of a theory.
|
If it's not important enough, let it be.
If so, then break up.
Argument seldom convinces people. Changing opinions come slowly over time.
|
thanks to fishgle and shaetan for concisely stating what i was struggling to
|
|
|
|
|
|
135
EPT
