jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (104 posts)

Nature is more truthful than science

  1. profile image68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Nature is more truthful than science

    Science derives truthfulness from nature and nature derives truth from its creator, the ONE Creator God.

    1. Titen-Sxull profile image94
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Got anything for us that isn't new age gobbledygook?

      By the way, science studies nature primarily by directly observing it. The only reason it deviates from nature is because we don't have all the answers yet, incomplete information leaves us with only some of the answers.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Science should keep on doing what it does; religion supports it; beyond its reference points, it is absolutely useless; there it should not be accepted blindly; then one tries to make it a religion which it is not.

        1. ftclick profile image61
          ftclickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are many questions that religion does not answer. You come in this world alone and die alone. I do believe in a creator but many questions are unresolved. The Bible nor does the Koran answer those. Science has many answers but also cannot explain some things the Bible does. It is interesting

          1. profile image68
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Please start asking valid questions one by one; I will try to help you .

            Science also does not answer all the question; it is not designed to.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't help others when they asked valid questions, you never did. Why start now?

            2. profile image68
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                smile

    2. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would say that pure science is as truthful as nature. Interpretation of it can definitely be skewed, but scientific tests never have the wrong result. They always go according to nature.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree

  2. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years ago

    okay...gotcha...next?

    1. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Science is only a tool of the human beings; nature does not follow science; it is science that follows nature.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
  3. academysigma profile image60
    academysigmaposted 5 years ago

    In my opinion, you've hijacked and monopolized the word 'is'

    1. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't get you; please express yourself fully. I am a good listener.

      1. academysigma profile image60
        academysigmaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're making declarative statements without much backing. There's not much to debate if you express yourself like that. Much better to start your statements with 'I believe' or 'I think'.

  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    There is no truth in nature; it simply is.  Truth comes (as does falsehood) in descriptions of nature; if those descriptions are accurate they are "truth" and if not they are "false".

    A rock cannot be "truth" while a description of that rock can be either true or false.  If the rock weighs 10 pounds and your description claims 12 pounds that description is false.  A description cannot, of course, ever be completely true as it cannot completely describe the rock.  How many atoms are in it?  Where are the individual electrons?  Is there one atom of Uranium hidden in the 10 pounds of granite?  We consider the description to be "true" when it correctly describes only those attributes it is directed at, such as weight or composition, even while recognizing that it probably isn't 100% accurate.  Just 99.999999999%.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You think he is going to listen to logic and reason???!!!

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        You come up with reason; if you have any. It may benefit me and others and in case it is going to harm you anyway.

        Human beings do learn from one another; and there is no shame in it.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not goin waste my time again on you. If you can't think for yourself, then its your problem.

    2. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I understand you; absolute truth is beyond human imagination and comprehension.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What drugs are you on? roll

        1. profile image68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The same as you are.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting statement.

      2. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yet you believe that you know the "TRUTH" about God Allah the Creator?  lol

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, of course.  He's been posting here long enough to show that.

          There is a world of difference between "believe" and "know" however.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wasn't the trerm "A Believer" a made up word ...created by unbelievers, that they put on the other people that believed what Jesus said.

              Thereby, finding their own identity.  from that day forward ... they called themselves "Non Believers"  And the world has been divided ever sense.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sounds a little far fetched.  More likely the believers didn't like the labels applied to them and designed that one instead.

              But the world as certainly been divided - that much I'll go with!

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I was just funing with YA.

                   But come to think about it?

                  Everyone believes in something  ...  SO everyone is in the process of believing ...  SO doesn't that mean that everyone are believers?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Probably, depending on your definition of "believe" and "know".

                  The biggest difference, to me, is that one "believes" based on desire, one "knows" based on at least some evidence.  Know is never 100%, but belief is seldom much more than 0% factually based.

                  I "know" the sun will come up in the morning, but it actually may not.  I "believe" that predestination is a invalid concept, but have no evidence that that is true.  I just want it to be true.

        2. profile image68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is because the Creator God himself had Converse with His chosen people called messengers prophets of the Creator God.

          [72:27] He is the Knower of the unseen; and He reveals not His secrets to any one,
          [72:28] Except to him whom He chooses, namely a Messenger of His. And then He causes an escort of guarding angels to go before him and behind him,

          http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=26

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh?  Just how does he converse?  What language?  Does He use sound or sign language?  Write on stone tablets?  Or just implant the answers directly into your brain, whereupon you don't know if He answered or if you came up with the answer yourself?

          2. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It would be completely naive and foolish of me if I took your word for these extraordinary supernatural claims without any evidence whatsoever...just whimsical wishful thinking.

            Do you understand that by using my common sense, I have no choice but to dismiss your claims...as they lack any objective truthfulness?

            You could have just as well told me that you are Napoleon reincarnated!

            1. profile image68
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You don't have to agree with me if you think otherwise.

  5. ubanichijioke profile image53
    ubanichijiokeposted 5 years ago

    And what is logic other than a fiction and imagination? Please school me!

    1. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You may enjoy the following:

      Quotes about logic

      Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.
      Joseph Wood Krutch

      Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice.
      Elbert Hubbard

      It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other.
      Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

      Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
      James Harvey Robinson

      Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.
      Benjamin Jowett

      Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities.
      Lord Dunsany

      He was in Logic a great critic,
      Profoundly skill'd in Analytic;
      He could distinguish, and divide
      A hair 'twixt south and south-west side.
      Samuel Butler, Hudibras.

      We must beware of needless innovations, especially when guided by logic.
      Sir Winston Churchill, Reply, House of Commons, Dec. 17, 1942.

      ...logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse.
      H. L. Mencken. The American Mercury. p. 75.

      http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    What does random preaching have to do with the concepts of nature and science anyway?

  7. profile image0
    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago

    what i think supports intelligent design is that in nature, male animals are more colorful than females. Take birds for example. Peacocks are interesting, but the male bird, being brighter distracts preditors aways from the nest, while the camouflaged female sits quietly on her nest hatching eggs.

    Now how would, could or in what way does evolution decide that this is a good plan? and then how does it decide that the male should be brighter to be used as a distraction?

    back to the peacock
    on the male all those eyes are to hypnotize the female so he can breed with her. What part of evolution concocted that?

    1. mom101 profile image59
      mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh I KNOW  I'm gonna get hounded on this one, but I do agree with the first sentence of the OP posting.

      From Nature, science evolved.

      Any other thinking would be wrong.

    2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Another interesting point is that in the insect world it tends to be the other way around I believe. The males are smaller and often get eaten after mating.

    3. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Now how would, could or in what way does evolution decide that this is a good plan?"

      If that is really the reason, it would be because a bright colored male produces more offspring on the average.  Average being found over tens of thousands of generations.

      "What part of evolution concocted that?"  The part that "counts" offspring - it would happen because males with many "eyes" have more offspring on the average.  Average being found over tens of thousands of generations.

      This is the same basic answer to almost every evolution question that concerns why something happened evolution wise.  If it produces more offspring over many generations then a particular trait spreads itself. 

      One may question and try to figure out just why more offspring is produced, but if they are then evolution is happening.  For instance, the bright colors - males may draw predators away (and perhaps die trying) from the female and nest, but those peacocks then survive and produce ever more descendents from the (now dead) male.  If the male did not draw off the predator the female and all chicks or eggs die, maybe leaving the male to try again if he survives until next year and maybe not leaving him alive for now.

      Brother O, I've seen you many times on these forums in discussions of evolution.  Are you truly that ignorant of the basics of the theory or do you ask for a different reason?

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Here's an honest question for you since you seem to have an authority on the subject. Evolution is based off of the mutation of a specie, but the dominant genes tend to determine the trait of the offspring, correct?

        How does a mutation, a accident, become the dominant, the perferred?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If mutation produces a recessive gene to go alongside a dominant one 50% of offspring will carry the recessive gene.  If offspring mate together, 1 out of 4 will have two recessive genes and thus have the trait.

          A mutation could also produce a dominant gene, whereupon 1/2 of the first set of offspring will carry the gene and exhibit trait. Species age of a particular gene does not determine dominant/recessive and there is no particular reason a mutated gene cannot be dominant.  It's the luck of the draw.

          There is also the matter of a recessive gene becoming more common than the dominant through evolutionary forces; blue eyes (at least in America) is such an example.  Blue eyes is a recessive gene, but has become much more common than brown, which is the dominant gene.  I guess people like blue eyes much better in their mate.

          Does that answer your question?

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, in a way. However I wonder if plants evolved in the same fashion? I have never heard of the evolution of plants before but after discovering the Bee Orchid of Israel it baffles me to think that a plant and a specie of bee would have evolved together on the same page for one to mimic the other.

            It seems to me that if evolution were the truth and bases of life then evolution would have to have a plan of action for such a thing to occur correct?

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Plan indicates intelligence. Evolution has no intelligence. wink

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I agree, bare with me here, if a specie of plant and a specie of insect evolved over time one mimicing the other, doesnt that suggest that there is something more than chance at work? If evolution relys on mutation for the evolution jumps to occur then isn't the likley hood of two entities being completely seperate, evolving to be so intune with the other that they would have had to have built off of each other.

                The break away here is that if evolution has no consciencness an it is the term to describe the "auto-matic bettering of a specie" then how is it that life evolved into three different levels, water, land and air and of those there their are millions of specie that have evolved. How is it that if evolution is the bettering of a specie that life complicated itself into mating as opposed to A-sexual repoduction? That seems like it's backwards to me.

                This is all coming to me as I write it so bare with me please.

                Further more which came first the female or the male and if it were the female how did the A-sexual creature impregnant it?

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It doesn't suggest anything. Evolution is nothing more than a process.
                  No.
                  Remember, consciousness doesn't mean intelligence. Evolution is just a process.
                  I don't know enough about the process to answer your question.
                  Again, I don't know enough about it to answer your question.

                2. profile image0
                  Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Everything which is animated has 'intelligence'.

                  How does a stream of water know which path to take which requires the least resistance?

                  How do trees know that growing upwards (as opposed to downwards) achieves a greater catchment of sunlight?

                  How does a lion know that slower prey are easier to catch?

                  BASIC INTELLIGENCE!!!! THE ABILITY TO LIVE IN A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT!!!!

                  There is NOTHING special about intelligence and EVERYTHING has it!!!

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Can you define intelligence for me sir?

            2. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Plants have genes so the evolve the same way

              Animals and plants are in the environment so they are part of the selection pressure on the species.

            3. profile image0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Plants do evolve. Trees grow upwards in order to absorb more sunlight. Flowers evolve colour to attract the insect with the best performance in spawning polen (some insects can see colours in a particular part of the spectrum but not others). Some plants evolve to encourage a particular type of nectar consuming bird to grow a longer beak by evolving a longer 'bell' containing the nectar so the beak can carry more pollen (gathered as the bird pokes its beak into the flute) and therefore polinate a greater area.

              Even plants share a common ancestor with humans!

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I can believe we share a common ancestory with plants. I've met alot of nuts my life

                1. profile image0
                  Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Like it! LOL

        2. profile image0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't fall into the trap of judging mutation as 'monsterous!' as in horror movies. Mutations can be beneficial as well as a hindrance.

        3. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The mutation can be in the dominant gene.

          Also, it can be in the recessive and be inherited while not being expressed and then exhibited when two carriers mate.

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What part of evolution concocted that?"  The part that "counts" offspring - it would happen because males with many "eyes" have more offspring on the average.  Average being found over tens of thousands of generations.

        That  is a nice bit of reverse mechanics... but how did the eyes get their in the first place was my point, not that those with eyes produce more offspring. How did the eyes come to exist in the first place.

        1. profile image0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Eyes are made up of millions of light-sensitive cells depending on the creature. There are microscopic creatures that have only one light-sensitive 'eye' cell and can only differentiate between light and dark. Over millions of years our eyes evolved to become more intricate and better at seeing things - all important to the success of the species.

          Some deep sea creatures have eyes that have evolved backwards! With no need for eyes at the bottom of the ocean they are left with simple 'marks' where the eyes would once have been, indicating that the species would have been living in lighter conditions in the past, or even on land!

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong "eyes".  We're referring to the circles on a peacock tail that resembles eyes but is simply colored spots.  Used for display purposes only.

            1. profile image0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Aaaaah! Sorry.

          2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Richard Dawkins claims that the eye could have realistically been formed in less than 500,000 years and not millions. That's from a animal that only has a flat eye to a fully functioning eye. Seems unlikely to me but who am I to argue with a professor in evolutionary biologist.

            1. profile image0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If you read his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" I think you will grasp how this is possible. You should look at evolution in terms of 'generations' rather than years and define what a 'fully functioning eye' actually means!

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, but Dawkins was referring to an animal that had a very short life span, hence the short time frame in evolutionary terms. A one year life span, imsc.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Correct, but an eye is an eye is it not?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Not really. If we check out all the different eyes from the various species of the world, we find a tremendous variation amongst them.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    If you are talking about the time scale needed for it to evolve, no--not at all.

              2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Correct, but an eye is an eye is it not?

            3. profile image68
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are an atheist; why don't you doubt what Richard Dawkins claims ?

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am not an atheist. I don't doubt what Richard Dawkins says at all, I believe 100% that he believes what he is saying.

                1. profile image68
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do you believe that whatever Richard Dawkins says is 100% correct? He has no such claim himself; if he has please quote from him.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    This is a prime example of your poor reading comprehension. Captain Redbeard didn't say Richard Dawkins said is correct. He said that he believes 100% that Richard Dawkins believes what he is saying.

                    There wasn't anything stated about it being correct.

                  2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I believe that he believes he is correct or he wouldn't speak so adimitly about the topics he speaks about. I believe you believe what you speak.

                    I'm not dumb enough to say there is no evolution. It's proven all around us everyday when you look at people of different nationalities. The fact that I have white skin with red undertones and my wife has white skin with slightly tan undertone means we geneticly are different. Not to mention the hair color, or my uncle who is black! Asians have more fat over their eyes which gives their eyes the almond shape so on and so forth. What I am seeking Paarsurrey is truth. Truth is not wholey contained within one book or one prophet as you muslims would think. Truth is all around us. If we have eyes to see and ears to hear it, it will be self evident to us.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Primarily mutation.  Radiation, chemicals, misstep in the gamete or zygote stage, whatever it takes to change a gene.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I like to think I listen to everyone with respect so if this comment sounds disrespectful I apologize, I just don't know how else to word it.....

            How can we say that man has actually evolved into the perfect state for his surroundings? We cannot survive the elements, we have to cook our meat before we eat it and if we take away all technology we would be extinct with in one generation.

            The things that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and apparently since Comper says we are also connected to plants, the plant kingdom is the fact that we use our minds over our instinct. We are the only creature on the face of the plant that strictly ignores the "instinct" within us and tries to reason every situation and problem we are faced with.

            How or when does the evolutionary step take place that replaces the only thing that has served the rest life without fail to ensure it's survival, instinct, with reason which has caused every single horrible thing in our specie be it, war, famine, slavery, genocide.

            You can throw up all the examples you want to of animals forcing other animals to do work for them as slavery or tribal war between chimps or what ever but you know that they don't hold a candle to the things we have done with our superior evolved mind to reason.

            1. profile image0
              Wilfionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I doubt that mankind would become extinct without our technology.  After all, we survived for hundreds of thousands of years without it, and the rest of the animal kingdom manages to exist without technology.  True, medical and scientific advances have improved our lives dramatically, even if it has been at the expense of the environment and of the other animals we share this planet with.  And our lifespans would decrease without the advances we have made, but we would still exist, even though it would be at a more primitive level.  Man has faced many threats, from plague to famine, yet we still manage to survive.

              Having said that, if man follows the natural order of things, we will become extinct eventually, in spite of our technology.  Of all the species that have ever existed on this planet, 99% of them are now extinct, much of this extinction happening before man was even here.  So, it is part of nature for species to become extinct, but I doubt that for humans, this will happen anytime soon.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Like you I have to disagree with nearly everything you say, and with no disrespect intended.

              Anyone that claims man has evolved to the perfect state for his environment is a fool.  We DO survive the elements, and while we cook our food it probably isn't necessary.  Should we approach it slowly, giving our current bodies time to adapt, I doubt we would see too much death; certainly not enough to kill the species.  Nevertheless, there are thousands of things that could be improved for better survival; eyes that don't wear out too soon.  Teeth that last, given our diet.  Better resistance to cancer.  A better form of childbirth.  Lots of things.

              I find that few people actually try to "reason" their way through life; for the most part our wants and desires take priority over the great effort that seems needed to actually reason, and usually overrides any negative conclusions that reason DOES supply.

              While reason has caused many, many things that we determine to be horrible, evolution doesn't care about that.  Survival wise, we are the single most successful large animal on the face of the planet by the only yardstick evolution uses; the ability to fill ecological niches and survive.  Give us time and well will wipe out most insects and small animals just as we have larger ones and take over their habitat, too.  Evolution has produced the ability to reason and that has produced the ability to take whatever we want, reproduce and grow in numbers as a species.  No other animal can compete.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you for you entertaining a fool lol

                I just have a problem with the idea that one day we were eating from the earth and the next or serious of days, we were cutting slabs of meat and cooking it over a fire because in our animalistic state we thought, "hmmm I bet this would taste better if I seered it on all sides." Because it certainly had nothing to do with the knowledge that bacteria decays meat from the outside to the inside. Does that make sense? This is where evolution has always thrown me. Not that there was a progression from creatures living closer to the surface of the waters that have dived down to where their eyes are near useless. It's Mans progression. I can entertain the entire theory up until things like this, evolution wouldnt have told us to cook our food over a fire or wear clothes to keep warm. Evolution would have given our stomach acids the ability to break down the bactiera that would have otherwise made us sick right? Evolution would have made sure we would have kept our hairy bodies to brave the weather, right?  I'm not trying to argue, I am trying to understand.

                1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                  Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  hmm

  8. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Who said evolution leads to perfection? It doesn't, it leads--over typically quite long periods of time-- to the species being somewhat adapted to the environment it lives in. Which for humans is predominantly the savanah

  9. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Evolution doesn't have to "know" anything.  The variation can be random, and the selection is based on who makes the most babies. So if it works, it doen;t matter why you did it, you get to have the babies.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But I can't ever have any babies!  Does this mean that evolution has passed the male sex by and left us as hairy monkeys, scratching our armpits and bouncing around the savannah or swinging from the trees? smile

      1. profile image0
        Wilfionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I don't know about you, but that accurately describes my life.  And evolution has left us men with nipples which have no other use than decoration.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it.  And as you say, decoration, but not even very good decoration.  They can't compare to what certain others can sport about!

          Maybe if we could all live inside a nuke plant for a year we could evolve faster?

  10. profile image68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    ftclick has not asked any questions.

    Nature is more truthful than science ; science is only a part; nature compared to it is whole.

    1. profile image0
      Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Pope is an atheist and that's the truth!

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't disagree with you.

        1. profile image0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And you're an atheist, and that's also true!

          1. profile image68
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is not true; I cannot make such an obvious blunder.

            1. profile image0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Your words are false. You are an atheist hiding behind a religious mask. You are a liar without fear of going to Hell! You entertain yourself by kidding your fellow friends and will one day admit it.

              I can see through your charade!

              1. profile image68
                paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't mind.

                You can hold whatever opinion you like about me; I have stated what I sincerely believe,practice and declare.

                1. profile image0
                  Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No no no!!! Don't try too hard! People will start to suspect you.

                  Play it cool and take 'em in. Once you have their confidence you can start to take a little bit of 'innocent' money. You know, 'a fool and their money are easily parted' and all that.

                  Hubpages is a GREAT place to draw fools in! Grab 'em while you can. lol

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well spotted!

  11. waes-hael profile image61
    waes-haelposted 5 years ago

    Couldn't be said better..!

    1. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
 
working