God and Science agree -why don't we?

[Etritonakin]

The true God and true science cannot be refuted.

Men, however, often just make stuff up.

"Creationists" have made wild assertions based on misunderstanding of scripture.

Scientists have denied the existence of God without scientific proof -but by their ability to disprove what some creationists believe.

What is written in the bible cannot be proven false by science -and any (real -actually proven) scientific discovery certainly cannot be made false by what is written in the bible.

Both "sides" make false assumptions and assertions.

God and science are correct -we are just newbs arguing with each other.

(Slightly off-topic, but when the "science-minded" try to disprove the biblical flood, they often begin with ruling out that it was possible (not 100% scientific, but understandable) -and looking for things they think are possible which would give reason for the "myth"-and finding evidence for that... or try to disprove false assumptions about the bible -which may have been asserted by errant creationists...

Scientists:
My question is (and I sincerely want to understand)....assuming it is possible -such a miraculous mega-flash-flood (humor me here).... What would be the scientific evidence left by what was written in the bible -based on what science knows (not what creationists claim) to be the state of the earth/people/flora/fauna between ...say ...6,000 to 2,000 BC?

If it actually rained for 40 days and 40 nights -and the springs in the ground put forth water -and God made available enough water -so that waters did not subside for 150 days -what would be the scientific evidence thereof?? If it all happened at once -everywhere -would things really have changed much? If so, how? Rather than flowing from one area to another, what would a simultaneous flood everywhere do?
Note that a height of 18 cubits (about 22 feet) is specified in the bible -which is apparently 22 feet over the highest mountains given the language in the bible -and the fact that the ark is recorded as having come to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" -though not necessarily at the highest peak.

And...
What would such an occurrence do today?

 

[painted wolf]

Floods leave particular types of debris and silt deposits... we should see a massive uniform layer of such deposits world wide.

We should also see animals distributed fairly evenly... not in an order suggesting a progression of species. Or (to be generous) if we do see a progression of species it should be based on an animals ability to flee a flood... we see neither.

Genetically we should be able to trace all species back to a genetic bottleneck event at the same time. All species would have suffered massive loss of genetic diversity that would show up in their genetic make up. We don't see this.

Also if you argue that only "kinds" and not one of each modern species was taken on the ark... we should have evidence of ridiculously fast rates of speciation/micro-evolution. Rodents alone would need to produce two species a year to account for modern diversity, let alone accounting for fossil species. This is perhaps the biggest irony in the creation story...the need for hyper-evolution.

Just a few thoughts to ponder.

wa:do

 

[Etritonakin]

Floods leave particular types of debris and silt deposits... we should see a massive uniform layer of such deposits world wide.

We should also see animals distributed fairly evenly... not in an order suggesting a progression of species. Or (to be generous) if we do see a progression of species it should be based on an animals ability to flee a flood... we see neither.

Genetically we should be able to trace all species back to a genetic bottleneck event at the same time. All species would have suffered massive loss of genetic diversity that would show up in their genetic make up. We don't see this.

Also if you argue that only "kinds" and not one of each modern species was taken on the ark... we should have evidence of ridiculously fast rates of speciation/micro-evolution. Rodents alone would need to produce two species a year to account for modern diversity, let alone accounting for fossil species. This is perhaps the biggest irony in the creation story...the need for hyper-evolution.

Just a few thoughts to ponder.

wa:do

Will do. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Etritonakin]

Floods leave particular types of debris and silt deposits... we should see a massive uniform layer of such deposits world wide.

We should also see animals distributed fairly evenly... not in an order suggesting a progression of species. Or (to be generous) if we do see a progression of species it should be based on an animals ability to flee a flood... we see neither.

Just a few thoughts to ponder.

wa:do

I'm not formally educated as a scientist, so I'll be reading up on subjects as this progresses (hopefully it will) -not to mention re-reading and researching the biblical account. Some of my questions might seem ridiculous, but please bear with me.

My first thoughts were of the flood itself -and the immediate aftermath.
The floods scientists might deem possible and the biblical flood might be similar, but they might also have slightly different results do to the rate of increase of water -as well as the opposite -the fact that waters came from rain and from beneath the ground simultaneously -complete inundation rather than local -etc..etc..

Rather than a massive uniform layer of deposits such as would occur with huge meteor strike -where dust/ash/whatever settled across the globe in a neat layer -would not such a quick, massive flood and abatement (150 days total) create surface erosion in higher places, and leave sediment and dead animal, human and plant life mostly in lower areas -even washing most of this material into the sea -as well as certain isolated spots which were lower than their surroundings -with no outlet for such?

Remember, we're talking about filling the earth with water above the mountains -and draining -it all within 150 days. A 15-30 feet-per-hour rise in water level (15+ if the water was above Ararat -30 if above Everest)- worldwide -simultaneously -assuming the end of the 40 days and nights of rain was the beginning of the abatement of the flood. The rain from above would have caused much erosion initally to any area still exposed -and not covered by the water from below. If the rest of the 150 days -which would leave 110 days -was when the water would have receded, the inundation would have been roughly three times as fast as the abatement. This would still mean massive amounts of water -and not calmly depositing sediment, but taking at least most sediment downward with it -as well as most anything else which wasn't rather secure -including dead life forms. Some of what was below would be caught up in the water and left in high places -but only few of the the finest particles, and so on down the line -and the suspended sediment might have remained relatively localized rather than being homogenous within the water -not necessarily being mixed completely -so it would seem to me that it would not leave a uniform layer at all -but rather soil-rich, arable places in any relatively low spot (or inner part of a curve of flowing water)-where most of the sediment would have settled -along with much organic matter (which was not washed into the sea) -made up of mostly localized sediment/debris.

Incorrect?

Just my initial thoughts -again, not a scientist -and still looking into it.

Looking into the genetics, etc.... too, but want to concentrate on the geology, etc.. at first, as there are seemingly fewer variables to consider (not to mention I'm a genetics noob -ok, I'm a geology/climate/weather/whatever noob, too, but it seems a bit more understandable).

What did you mean by "animals distributed fairly evenly"? By the waters? I'm not sure if I understood that correctly.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not formally educated as a scientist, so I'll be reading up on subjects as this progresses (hopefully it will) -not to mention re-reading and researching the biblical account. Some of my question might seem ridiculous, but please bear with me.

No problem... I enjoy questions asked with an honest heart.

Just to be honest and upfront... I'm not a geologist... I'm a biologist. But I have a great interest in Paleontology (which is very geology heavy) and I've been studying the evidence for and against Creationism/ID for over 10 years now.

My first thoughts were of the flood itself -and the immediate aftermath.
The floods scientists might deem possible and the biblical flood might be similar, but they might also have slightly different results do to the rate of increase of water -as well as the opposite -the fact that waters came from rain and from beneath the ground simultaneously -complete inundation rather than local -etc..etc..

Slightly different perhaps... but we should see clear signs of a flood that doesn't break the rules of physics.
At least if you claim this is scientific... if the flood is magical/mythical/miraculous... then all bets are off.

Rather than a massive uniform layer of deposits such as would occur with huge meteor strike -where dust/ash/whatever settled across the globe in a neat layer -would not such a quick, massive flood and abatement (150 days total) create surface erosion in higher places, and leave sediment and dead animal, human and plant life mostly in lower areas -even washing most of this material into the sea -as well as certain isolated spots which were lower than their surroundings -with no outlet for such?

Water erosion looks distinctive from ice and wind erosion for example. We should see massive layers of fairly typical fast water flood debris... like we see evidence for with the Black Sea flood and the Missoula Floods for example.
Some info (wiki just to warn you) on the Missoula Floods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
This should be seen globally and in prodigious amounts (given the extreme severity of the Noah flood)

Remember, we're talking about filling the earth with water above the mountains -and draining -it all within 150 days. A 15-30 feet-per-hour rise in water level (15+ if the water was above Ararat -30 if above Everest)-worldwide assuming the end of the rain was the beginning of the abatement of the flood. The rain from above would have caused much erosion initally to any area still exposed -and not covered by the water from below. If the rest of the 150 days -which would leave 110 days -was when the water would have receded, it would have been about half as fast. The inundation would have been approximately twice as fast as the abatement. This would still mean massive amounts of water -and not calmly depositing sediment, but taking at least most sediment downward with it -as well as most anything else which wasn't rather secure -including dead life forms. Some of what was below would be caught up in the water and left in high places -but only the finest particles -so it would not seem to me that it would leave a uniform layer at all -but rather arable places in any realtively low spot -where most of the sediment would have settled -along with much organic matter (which was not washed into the sea).

Which naturally brings up the questions:
Where did the water come from... and where did it go?
How could it flood the whole Earth in that time frame and not break the laws of physics?
How could Noah and the rest breath so far up for so long?

However to answer the deposition question... the highest levels may likely have been scoured bare.. but then how to account for the fossils?
And why are no massive deposits found in low places like Death Valley? It should be absolutely brimming with jumbled fossils.

Also why would the fossils we do find arrange themselves in such a peculiar manner? If all the animals and humans died at the same time and were churned around in the flood... why do we not find Dinosaurs, humans and trilobites all together?
Why are some of the best fossils not found in watery sediment but in things like volcanic ash?

Noah's flood raises more questions than it answers... and there are no good explanations to answer them. (except to invoke the supernatural... which is fine for religion, but not for science.)

wa:do

 

[Etritonakin]

No problem... I enjoy questions asked with an honest heart.

Just to be honest and upfront... I'm not a geologist... I'm a biologist. But I have a great interest in Paleontology (which is very geology heavy) and I've been studying the evidence for and against Creationism/ID for over 10 years now.

However to answer the deposition question... the highest levels may likely have been scoured bare.. but then how to account for the fossils?
And why are no massive deposits found in low places like Death Valley? It should be absolutely brimming with jumbled fossils.

Also why would the fossils we do find arrange themselves in such a peculiar manner? If all the animals and humans died at the same time and were churned around in the flood... why do we not find Dinosaurs, humans and trilobites all together?
Why are some of the best fossils not found in watery sediment but in things like volcanic ash?

wa:do

First, let's move beyond the assumptions of some creationists.

1) The bible does not give a specific date for the initial creation of the earth. Some have assumed it to be when Adam was created -nearly 6,000 years ago -but this is not the case. It actually suggests otherwise. What is recorded in Genesis is a resurfacing of the earth before the creation of Adam and Eve. The first line briefly states that God created the heavens and earth in the beginning. The second line says that the earth THEN BECAME formless and void. There is no time specified between these events.

2) Nothing in the bible suggests that dinosaurs and trilobites existed 6,000 to 2,000 BC. -or that they could not have existed millions of years ago -on earth (or that the flood did much churning around) God is without beginning of days and end of life -surely he would have been up to something -been about his creating business -long before Adam (not to mention he created the angels with creativity -who the book of Job says shouted for joy at the initial creation of the earth -hardly a reaction to a formless void. Also, when Satan rebelled and tried to dethrone God, it is written that he said "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds" -which suggests he was on earth long before influencing Adam and Eve).

3) The flood -or even the account in Genesis -are not the only things to ever have happened -so any physical evidence would also be affected by everything else that has happened.

I am asking that we do assume, for argument's sake, that the flood was miraculously possible -but that everything else was as science says it was between 6,000 and 2,000 BC. I do believe both are correct, but am trying to understand what the results would be -in order to examine my beliefs.

As for Death Valley specifically... just some quick, random, potentially completely wrong thoughts, as I know little of the area... but it could be brimming with fossils -yet not necessarily at the surface. Life -especially human -would be nearer the low-lying (relative to Ararat or Everest) areas anyway -leaving plenty of opportunity to be buried deep under sediment -or washed to sea. It would also depend if there was much life in the area to begin with -and how the water flowed and settled. What sort of animals or people lived nearby or in areas which would have deposited them there as waters receded- how many? What was the area like 4,000 years ago? Stones may not have moved much relatively, but sand, etc... may have shifted -has recent-history seismic activity affected the area? It's low now, but was it lower or higher then? Would the area have been suitable to preserve a fossil from about 4,000 years ago? What sort of fossil would we have after only 4,000 years?

I'll sum that up as "I don't know". hehehehe -but some valid considerations!

My brain hurts -I'm gonna go play video games.

 

[darkendless]

I'm not formally educated as a scientist, so I'll be reading up on subjects as this progresses (hopefully it will) -not to mention re-reading and researching the biblical account. Some of my questions might seem ridiculous, but please bear with me.

Your willingness to listen to refreshing As far as qualifications go, im not a scientist, im a geotechnical engineer. Dealing with flooding is quite annoying, trust me

My first thoughts were of the flood itself -and the immediate aftermath.
The floods scientists might deem possible and the biblical flood might be similar, but they might also have slightly different results do to the rate of increase of water -as well as the opposite -the fact that waters came from rain and from beneath the ground simultaneously -complete inundation rather than local -etc..etc..

Something i always bring up is where would the water go? Also, what made the water come from the ground? Groundwater tables MUST MUST be at equilibrium or they cause a process called heaving (up), or rapid drawdown (down). In order to initiate these actions there has to be a rapid shift in the soil's unit weight. Basically, for rapid draw down, the unit weight of the soil is effectively zero or negative, meaning it free drains away leaving a very unstable and void filled soil behind.

The other side, heaving (which would cause water to push up) is a drastic change in the water content of the soil. Generally, for it to be effective enough to cause water to break the surface, the soil needs to reach liquification which only occurs under severe loading (possibly from a heck load of rain?)

I'll try and use an example here to clarify what i'm saying.

Basically, for water in such multitudes to heave above the ground surface simultaneously across the earth, a meteoric change in earth pressure (forces pushing outwards from the earth) is required.

Earth pressure is generally in equilibrium assuming entities are at rest. In order for the flood to be realistic, this equilibrium must have been disturbed. This is what the earth looks like in equilibrium (sorry for the bad drawing)

(edit: for some reason my pretty picture wont show up. grrrr)

No one i've ever spoken to has even been able to explain how equilibrium was breached to a degree that would cause a global flood.

Rather than a massive uniform layer of deposits such as would occur with huge meteor strike -where dust/ash/whatever settled across the globe in a neat layer -would not such a quick, massive flood and abatement (150 days total) create surface erosion in higher places, and leave sediment and dead animal, human and plant life mostly in lower areas -even washing most of this material into the sea -as well as certain isolated spots which were lower than their surroundings -with no outlet for such?

Giant alluvial deposits would be everywhere. What would also happen, due to the weight of water, is the soil layers would form a suspension (they'd break apart) and settle as the water settled.

Essentially, following a flood of such proportions, a think (probably 6-8 inches) layer of very very loose, black (due to the strangely high organic content) layer of highly compressible silts and organic clays would result.

The reason i bring this up is because such layers of compressible materials which would be near the surface (as the flood was apparently only 20000 years ago). This means that as a geotech, i'd find them almost every day almost everywhere. To be frank, this would make designing buildings much harder than it is thus refuting the argument of a global flood... unless it just left out Australia.

Remember, we're talking about filling the earth with water above the mountains -and draining -it all within 150 days. A 15-30 feet-per-hour rise in water level (15+ if the water was above Ararat -30 if above Everest)- worldwide -simultaneously -assuming the end of the 40 days and nights of rain was the beginning of the abatement of the flood. The rain from above would have caused much erosion initally to any area still exposed -and not covered by the water from below. If the rest of the 150 days -which would leave 110 days -was when the water would have receded, the inundation would have been roughly three times as fast as the abatement. This would still mean massive amounts of water -and not calmly depositing sediment, but taking at least most sediment downward with it -as well as most anything else which wasn't rather secure -including dead life forms. Some of what was below would be caught up in the water and left in high places -but only few of the the finest particles, and so on down the line -and the suspended sediment might have remained relatively localized rather than being homogenous within the water -not necessarily being mixed completely -so it would seem to me that it would not leave a uniform layer at all -but rather soil-rich, arable places in any relatively low spot (or inner part of a curve of flowing water)-where most of the sediment would have settled -along with much organic matter (which was not washed into the sea) -made up of mostly localized sediment/debris.

Incorrect?

Thats hard to assume. It could have been localised but the chances of finding rich localized deposits would increase if the time taken for the water to subside was lengthened.

Here comes second year fluids mechanics for you

Ok, given the nature of the flood, is not as though the water would have been still at all. From the assumption above, we're assuming (as the only forseeable possiblility) that ground water decided to upwards very quickly.

This heaving is quite de-stabilising for most soil types other than very stiff clays which have higher plasticity. Now, given the weight of the water on the ground surface and the heaving action pushing the water out of the ground, we have a conflict of forces. For calculation purposes, we engineers usually assume they are consistent to save ourselves time.

However, there would be disproportional forces acting upon eachother in localized zones (meaning they're not the same) causing turbulence on the surface layer of both the soil, and the contact point between soil and water. Therefore, i'm pretty sure there would be a pretty nifty distribution of soil particles meaning localised enriched zones would be unlikely.

Hopefully that made some sense. I can try to explain further if you have any questions

 

[painted wolf]

First, let's move beyond the assumptions of some creationists.

So, you are a believer in the "pre-Adamic" world idea.
That is useful to know...

I am asking that we do assume, for argument's sake, that the flood was miraculously possible -but that everything else was as science says it was between 6,000 and 2,000 BC. I do believe both are correct, but am trying to understand what the results would be -in order to examine my beliefs.

If I assume that the flood was miraculous then there is nothing further to be said. You can invoke miracle to sweep away anything that makes you question the story.

That is why once you invoke a miraculous explanation you remove any chance at science. Of course this bring up new problems... like the nature of the deity.

wa:do

 

[Etritonakin]

So, you are a believer in the "pre-Adamic" world idea.
That is useful to know...

If I assume that the flood was miraculous then there is nothing further to be said. You can invoke miracle to sweep away anything that makes you question the story.

That is why once you invoke a miraculous explanation you remove any chance at science. Of course this bring up new problems... like the nature of the deity.

wa:do

I could -but that is not what I'm doing at all.

I do believe the earth far predates Adam.

However, the miraculous is not necessarily unscientific -we just don't understand how it's done. I have seen the miraculous -seemingly impossible- done -and, though I did not know by what means they were done -rather the workings thereof -the results were quite real and measurable.

What science allows us to do today seemed impossible not long ago -and would have seemed miraculous to them (and,admittedly, probably deemed witchcraft by the religious).

I am merely trying to determine what the effects of this flood would be. Scientists have said it would be impossible, and that there is no evidence for it -but much of that has been based on the false assertions of creationists. I am assuming the event to be miraculous (of greater power than we possess or would occur naturally) -which is not necessarily unscientific -and that scientific evidence exists if i did happen. Now I am trying to see if these things are correct. It's rather scientific -and I'm not trying to explain an absence of evidence -but determine what evidence there would be -so I would know where to begin.

It is not scientifically impossible that a creative being have enough power to do such a thing. In fact, men are constantly gaining more and more power over their environment -and are less at its mercy. There is nothing scientific that says another being has powers greater than ours.

I'm honestly not making a jab, but how do you reckon your beliefs with science?
What is the nature of the "Great Spirit" -if that has anything to do with your beliefs?
(not sure what you believe)

 

[the_naturalist]

you stated that science cannot falsify religion ... people make all sorts of universal claims that would be impossible to falsify ... how can one falsify one's claim of a china teapot revolving around the sun ... in science, it is the responsbility of the claimant to prove his claim ... it would be impossible to disprove all concealed claims ... the naturalist

 

[painted wolf]

However, the miraculous is not necessarily unscientific -we just don't understand how it's done. I have seen the miraculous -seemingly impossible- done -and, though I did not know by what means they were done -rather the workings thereof -the results were quite real and measurable.

I suppose it's all in how you define a miracle... so for this discussion a miracle simply isn't understood yet by science... but it is natural enough that science can eventually test it?

I am merely trying to determine what the effects of this flood would be. Scientists have said it would be impossible, and that there is no evidence for it -but much of that has been based on the false assertions of creationists. I am assuming the event to be miraculous (of greater power than we possess or would occur naturally) -which is not necessarily unscientific -and that scientific evidence exists if i did happen. Now I am trying to see if these things are correct. It's rather scientific -and I'm not trying to explain an absence of evidence -but determine what evidence there would be -so I would know where to begin.

Like I said earlier... you would find massive deposits of silt and debris... it wouldn't just all get washed out to sea. Even if it did, we would have noticed it as we take core samples from the ocean floor.

By the way, we know the geology of Death Valley... and there are no flood debris/deposits from a flood of global magnitude.

What wasn't buried under vast amounts of silt would have been scoured clean down to the bedrock.
All the worlds mountains should show evidence of water erosion... which is distinct from ice or wind erosion.

Just as a couple of geology points to consider.

It is not scientifically impossible that a creative being have enough power to do such a thing. In fact, men are constantly gaining more and more power over their environment -and are less at its mercy. There is nothing scientific that says another being has powers greater than ours.

Yeah.... this kind of argument I'm going to avoid for now. It is IMHO special pleading and invoking miracles again.

I'm honestly not making a jab, but how do you reckon your beliefs with science?
What is the nature of the "Great Spirit" -if that has anything to do with your beliefs?
(not sure what you believe)

This is a good place to start:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/native-american-dir/97236-ask-pw-about-her-faith.html
We wouldn't want to derail the thread with discussions about my faith.

wa:do

 

[Etritonakin]

I will consider those points among all others.

I wasn't trying to derail the thread -sorry you were so easily offended (If you were) -please feel free to not post in this thread if this is the sort of thing you are trying to avoid!

It only stands to reason.

Thank you for your input -you have given me many things to think about.

 

[darkendless]

aww... man, my post got ignored That took like 20 minutes.

 

[Etritonakin]

I read it -I'm trying to wade through the suggestiveness, but it seems there are some valid points there.
I was not so much interested in how it might be possible in the first place, but what would be the evidence left.

I'm not certain how serious you are about the Satan thing, but I tend to avoid such -no offense intended.

 

[Etritonakin]

you stated that science cannot falsify religion ... people make all sorts of universal claims that would be impossible to falsify ... how can one falsify one's claim of a china teapot revolving around the sun ... in science, it is the responsbility of the claimant to prove his claim ... it would be impossible to disprove all concealed claims ... the naturalist

What I said was... "What is written in the bible cannot be proven false by science"

This is very different than saying science cannot falsify religion.

Much of what is written in the bible has been proven by archaologists, etc... and some unbiased scientists do see evidence of a worldwide flood. Many scientists, however, begin with the assumption that it must be false and don't have any real interest in proving it. They take an example like Death Valley -as did my friend above -don't find what they expect to find -and are satisfied.

As for the "supernatural", a scientist may very well prove it by experiencing it. I am not a scientist, but took enough science to understand scientific method -and can say that I have proven the existence of God scientifically. Those who refuse to believe God is even a possibility cannot reproduce the same circumstances -and cannot get the same results.

As for my question -I claimed only what I believed and had set out to prove. I have been accused of derailing the thread by asking a perfectly innocent question -but have had little sincere, unbiased, information given concerning the question.

Many religious people make wild, unsubstantiated claims -as do many scientists -it's pretty universal among humans.

 

[painted wolf]

Much of what is written in the bible has been proven by archaologists, etc... and some unbiased scientists do see evidence of a worldwide flood. Many scientists, however, begin with the assumption that it must be false and don't have any real interest in proving it. They take an example like Death Valley -as did my friend above -don't find what they expect to find -and are satisfied.

I gave an honest example of what should be seen... but thank you for making your biases abundantly clear.

Have a good thread.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

The true God and true science cannot be refuted.

Men, however, often just make stuff up.

"Creationists" have made wild assertions based on misunderstanding of scripture.

Scientists have denied the existence of God without scientific proof -but by their ability to disprove what some creationists believe.

What is written in the bible cannot be proven false by science -and any (real -actually proven) scientific discovery certainly cannot be made false by what is written in the bible.

Both "sides" make false assumptions and assertions.

God and science are correct -we are just newbs arguing with each other.

(Slightly off-topic, but when the "science-minded" try to disprove the biblical flood, they often begin with ruling out that it was possible (not 100% scientific, but understandable) -and looking for things they think are possible which would give reason for the "myth"-and finding evidence for that... or try to disprove false assumptions about the bible -which may have been asserted by errant creationists...

The Bible is nothing more than an idol. Do you even know how your idol was created? the bible is a mockery and shame to God. And countless people worship it as representative of God. and if Christianity is real, Satan loves the Bible more than any other idol he can use to keep us in the darkness and stubborn of Agnostic Truth.

 

[Etritonakin]

The Bible is nothing more than an idol. Do you even know how your idol was created. the bible is a mockery and shame to God. And countless people worship it as representative of God. and if Christianity is real, Satan loves the Bible more than any other idol he can use to keep us in the darkness and stubborn of Agnostic Truth.

Duly noted.

 

[Etritonakin]

I gave an honest example of what should be seen... but thank you for making your biases abundantly clear.

Have a good thread.

wa:do

I'd like to apologize, as I was in a bad mood before I began to read your post (I've been dealing with some serious idiocy all day) -and it did skew your meaning, and apparently caused me to misread your intent.

Everybody, I am hereby Painted Wolf's Beeeeeatch.

I don't get out much -and when I do I am surrounded by the very confused. My people skills are lacking. My bad. I really do feel badly. I'm going to have some rum and grapefruit juice before replying to any more posts.
I'll understand if you iggy me from now on -I messed up.

 

[Luminous]

Duly noted.

is that sarcasm i sense??
the question still stands: do you know how your idol was created?