My Connections
Not connected to anyone yet?
This answer contributed to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
My answers support Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
Adam and Eve were just an explanation of very early men who knew nothing about our origins on this earth. It was always just meant to be figurative, not to be taken too seriously, I believe.
Report as
You have reported this
floppyfish:
1 year ago
well according to the bible Adam and eve were the first and i was always tough this but think of this god first made apes and then the apes went through evolution set in place by god
Report as
You have reported this
You can't start evolution at apes. You're dropping a few billion years prior.
Report as
You have reported this
sawyer101:
1 year ago
Cavemen are the reason were alive! Something called "evolution" changed us over millions of years so we wouldnt be as hairy as them!
Report as
You have reported this
Cavemen is a slang term
- yes we came from apes. -
It took millions of years for the apeman to learn to use fire-
And I won't comment on Adam n eve
Every time I do my answer gets removed
Report as
You have reported this
johnreal:
1 year ago
There were many humans not just ancient forms of humans, cave men are just those who lived in caves, and technically it does support evolution if you look at it differently, it shows that the human evolved to the point of making their own shelters
Report as
You have reported this
If by cavemen you mean Homo neanderthalensis, yes, they did exist over 30,000 years ago. The Adam and Eve story in no way supports evolution. It's pretty much the direct opposite.
Report as
You have reported this
That depends on how you superimpose today's scientific theory on the biblical story of Adam and Eve. I am loosely aware of honest interpretations of the bible that don't necessarily contradict with the current paradigm and data. There is a fundamental difficulty when comparing a book like the bible to a scientific paradigm. To interpret the bible in that way is misplaced like interpreting science as having the purpose of showing us the meaning of life. The bible is about the relation and revelation of God not about scientific theories. Not that it's invalid to ask or critique.
Report as
You have reported this
If you can "interpret" the creation story in such way as to eliminate the spontaneous creation of all animals/the earth/the sun, light being before the sun, plants before light, the earth being before other planets, talking snakes, and evil apples, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Report as
You have reported this
Sure. Well off the top from your old stomping grounds you may find examples like Pierre Teilhard de Cherdin or I think Ignace Lepp. From someone who I think is Jewish, there is a very interesting book by a scientist named Gerald Shroader(sp?) called "the hidden face of god". Anyways, if you really are interested I could spend more time to discuss it. It's all a very interesting topic, but the point of the bible in regards to the universe is that God created it, not that there is even a fraction of all the details of "how" or the technical order. I'll try and check back. My stomach aint feelin so great at the moment...probably an overshare. Lol
Report as
You have reported this
If none of the details matter, why go though such vigorous, and incorrect, specifics? Seems like God is either lying or.. well, lying.
Report as
You have reported this
And I am interested in this particular topic. My mom isn't a Creationist, but she has no good reason for the Creation story being in the Bible. She thinks it's one big metaphor or something while not at all explaining what she means by that. I don't even think she knows any other Atheists let alone have any arguments for her beliefs. I had one long talk about religion once and she never debates me anymore. Lots of "God did that"s and "Come to church with me"s now, but whenever I bring up any points of discussion she blows me off. I have a hard time understanding how you could believe in evolution, believe every word of the Bible is true, but still not explain why the Creation Story is in the Bible. I think (you might not like this) it's just another step towards people not being able to plug their God into the god of the gaps. With the overwhelming about of evidence for evolution, you're literally laughed at in most circles. It's been going on since the dawn of religion. The earth being the center of the universe would be another great, and overused, example. Secular morality also comes in to play over time. "Hey, stop burning that non-believer / witch / gay person" or "Stop oppressing women". Take a trip to those extreme places in the Middle East. That's (somewhat) how Christianity used to be. Ok, sorry, back on topic. If you could explain that previous point about the reason for a grossly incorrect creation account that'd be great. Explanations for other stories like Noah's Ark would be nice too.
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
"God" is merely the word people use when without knowing it they really mean "nature". Only nature doesn't glare at whatever it is you do behind closed doors, cuz she doesn't CARE.
Report as
You have reported this
Nove, if "she" doest care then why do you care....say something is right or wrong?
Report as
You have reported this
Nove, when I say I believe there is God I'm aware that am not referring directly to nature since I believe that God Is Pre nature(at least in the vague pop understanding of the word nature) and it's ultimate source. I honestly think you are very smart, just not smart enough to claim what all the people mean by the word "god".
Report as
You have reported this
I could say I care because some people feel the need to impose laws onto everyone that reflect their own religious views. Outlaw gay marriage, outlaw abortion, government-supported religious activities, creationism in science classrooms, etc.
Report as
You have reported this
Besides the fact that I can't imagine you or I could provide a distinct definition of the word nature without displaying our own belief in a particular presupposition behind the definition.
Report as
You have reported this
All you need to do is find things that are demonstrably true for everyone. I think only, what, 3 of the 10 Commandments are actual US laws? We can show what actions cause what consequences. Things like gay marriage have no secular arguments against it. It's just what whoever's specific friend in the sky doesn't like.
Report as
You have reported this
I do think: "there is/are no god(s), therefor don't steal." It's completely separate.
Report as
You have reported this
Rm, you, Nove and others can sure keep me busy! Lol If only we could get paid to do this then I could focus and respond quicker and more completely and not be bothered with getting jobs done to pay bills. ;)
Let's see: 1. I agree, If only we had something that is demonstrably true for everyone, you mean like atheism?...which is clearly not demonstrated to be true to everyone ("educated" or not). 2. You care about "imposing" well so do I. It's really a neither hear nor there point you make. If you are referring to manipulation or coercion over less powerful then I care the same way you do. I just acknowledge God as the ultimate reason for why I care. If I understand you right, then your's is based only upon what a certain consequence of a particular moral action is which is pragmatism rooted i suppose in who has the most power (weather it collectively or singularly). That doesn't explain how or why there is a universal sense of rightness or wrongness in all of known human history. Avoiding doing certain things because of consequences is one thing, but a conscience, guilt, honor etc. are left still begging the question. So what, that 3, none or all "10 commandments" are used as laws today? 3. Uh...shoot I cant remember now what your next point(s) where, I really got to fix my trailer lights and stuff. I'll try and check back latter. ;)
Let's see: 1. I agree, If only we had something that is demonstrably true for everyone, you mean like atheism?...which is clearly not demonstrated to be true to everyone ("educated" or not). 2. You care about "imposing" well so do I. It's really a neither hear nor there point you make. If you are referring to manipulation or coercion over less powerful then I care the same way you do. I just acknowledge God as the ultimate reason for why I care. If I understand you right, then your's is based only upon what a certain consequence of a particular moral action is which is pragmatism rooted i suppose in who has the most power (weather it collectively or singularly). That doesn't explain how or why there is a universal sense of rightness or wrongness in all of known human history. Avoiding doing certain things because of consequences is one thing, but a conscience, guilt, honor etc. are left still begging the question. So what, that 3, none or all "10 commandments" are used as laws today? 3. Uh...shoot I cant remember now what your next point(s) where, I really got to fix my trailer lights and stuff. I'll try and check back latter. ;)
Report as
You have reported this
I just used the 10 commandments as an example as how God doesn't seem to set the laws here. If his 10 best only are 30% worthy of being laws, that's a pretty poor result.
But nobody is basing anything of Atheism. You really can't even do that. If you tried, I guess you could outlaw the worship of god(s). Nobody is trying to do that, by the way. :)
It's not too hard finding out of something us good or bad. Would you like someone to kill you? No? Me too! Let's find others who think the same and form a society. Anyone who kills another person gets shunned. If an action is between 2 consenting adults with no repercussions to anyone else, why should others step in and stop them?
But nobody is basing anything of Atheism. You really can't even do that. If you tried, I guess you could outlaw the worship of god(s). Nobody is trying to do that, by the way. :)
It's not too hard finding out of something us good or bad. Would you like someone to kill you? No? Me too! Let's find others who think the same and form a society. Anyone who kills another person gets shunned. If an action is between 2 consenting adults with no repercussions to anyone else, why should others step in and stop them?
Report as
You have reported this
Rm, sorry dude. Too busy. I try and pick back up by email when I get a lighter schedule. Hope your studies are going well. ;)
Report as
You have reported this
Dozy:
1 year ago
Hi BlackRose. First, congratulations on being able to ask such a question at age 15. A lot of people never rise to the challenge and just muddle along without wondering. Your curiosity will serve you well as you get older -- no matter which side of the great debate you choose.
Yes, prehistoric people did exist including, as Rmoran pointed out, Neanderthal Man. In fact it's been 40,000 years since the earliest aborigines came to Australia across a land bridge from Asia.
Yes, the Adam and Eve story has been handed down for thousands of years. It's the creation myth of the Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But all religions have their own creation myths and you can find links to many of them at this site: http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Unfortunately it isn't accurate to suggest that if "cave men" didn't exist it would be unreasonable for schools to teach us about them. After all, schools have taught religious mythology for centuries as though it were true.
Report as
You have reported this
Dozy:
1 year ago
That would depend on who you asked, where you were when yoiu asked it, and whether the guy had been drinking.
I'd say that if you said it to a perfect stranger without any p[preliminaries you'd probably get a pretty good view of the hole in the ozone layer from flat on your back.
The usual term of endearment is, "G'day you old bastard."
I'd say that if you said it to a perfect stranger without any p[preliminaries you'd probably get a pretty good view of the hole in the ozone layer from flat on your back.
The usual term of endearment is, "G'day you old bastard."
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
I never learned religion in public school-- twern't aloud where I come from-- purely secular stuff in my classes. It was long before my time when they preached the bible in public schools.
*lol @ "G'day you old b@st@rd" :)-- that's a little rough, Dozy, you ain't from the outback are ya?
*lol @ "G'day you old b@st@rd" :)-- that's a little rough, Dozy, you ain't from the outback are ya?
Report as
You have reported this
Dozy:
1 year ago
First, the schools. In Oz we were compelled to attend a scripture class once a week. I don't think it's compulsory any more but is still available if wanted.
When I did National Service I regularly attended church parade. The options were, Volunteers to attend church parade form up on the right; volunteers to carry rocks form up on the left.
And that illegitimate word isn't necessarily a form of abuse in Oz. If you put "old" in front of it then it's a form of endearment; if somebody has pulled a fast one on you then it's a fairly humorous acknowledgement that he "got you". If you put "dead" in front of it you'd better be ready to fight.
There's actually a group who call themselves "The Australian Order of Old Bastards" and, if you call somebody a bastard in a pub and he pulls out his membership card and challenges you, you have to show your card in return. Penalty for not carrying your card is that you have to buy him a beer.
It's very complex but, until you understand the variations, it's safer to call everybody Mate.
When I did National Service I regularly attended church parade. The options were, Volunteers to attend church parade form up on the right; volunteers to carry rocks form up on the left.
And that illegitimate word isn't necessarily a form of abuse in Oz. If you put "old" in front of it then it's a form of endearment; if somebody has pulled a fast one on you then it's a fairly humorous acknowledgement that he "got you". If you put "dead" in front of it you'd better be ready to fight.
There's actually a group who call themselves "The Australian Order of Old Bastards" and, if you call somebody a bastard in a pub and he pulls out his membership card and challenges you, you have to show your card in return. Penalty for not carrying your card is that you have to buy him a beer.
It's very complex but, until you understand the variations, it's safer to call everybody Mate.
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
B@st@rd is a versatile word here as well-- it is no longer used for illegitimate children.
*Quick story; my brother's girlfriend brought her drunken sister to a thanksgiving dinner at my dear ol' dad's house years ago. (My dad is a proper, tactful gentleman but he's not a prude). The drunken woman called my dad a "b@st@rd" throughout the entire meal; the drunker she got, the more she drawled the word and added it to the end of one outrageous sentence after the other "ever had a threesome ya b@st@rd?"-- "how many girlfriend's ya got, ya b@st@rd"-- my dad acted as if every woman who sits at his dinner table asked him such things-- he calmly answered her and continued on with whatever conversation he was involved in. It was hilarious. The only thing my dad was upset about? The wine was expensive, had he known she was going to drink that much, he would have given her the cheap stuff.
*Anyway, "b@st@rd" is used in many ways here in the US as well
*Quick story; my brother's girlfriend brought her drunken sister to a thanksgiving dinner at my dear ol' dad's house years ago. (My dad is a proper, tactful gentleman but he's not a prude). The drunken woman called my dad a "b@st@rd" throughout the entire meal; the drunker she got, the more she drawled the word and added it to the end of one outrageous sentence after the other "ever had a threesome ya b@st@rd?"-- "how many girlfriend's ya got, ya b@st@rd"-- my dad acted as if every woman who sits at his dinner table asked him such things-- he calmly answered her and continued on with whatever conversation he was involved in. It was hilarious. The only thing my dad was upset about? The wine was expensive, had he known she was going to drink that much, he would have given her the cheap stuff.
*Anyway, "b@st@rd" is used in many ways here in the US as well
Report as
You have reported this
Dozy:
1 year ago
Sounds as though he handled an awkward situation well. I love situations like that. I get more stories from uncomfortable, or unpleasant things, than from the everyday stuff. And they don't have to be unpleasant in the re-telling. Give 'em a twist and everybody laughs.
I think I'd like your father.
I think I'd like your father.
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
via iPhone
I am certain you two would like each other-- both of you are charismatic and amusing fellows who tell great stories
Report as
You have reported this
redhotpoker:
1 year ago
Humans have sought shelter in caves for centuries - and, in fact, some still do today. And while we can learn many things by examining ancient habitats, the use of caves as dwellings does not provide effective evidence to support any particular origin of life theory.
It is interesting to note that, while there are some variations, there are only two primary theories of origin. Importantly, both theories are based on the same scientific evidence. In addition, there are brilliant scientists - past and present - who prefer, and even advocate, one theory over the other based on that evidence.
I suggest learning about and contrasting both evolutionary and intelligent design hypotheses in each scientific discipline you elect to study. It's the only way to determine what you believe to be the best interpretation of the evidence.
Reading list: "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D; "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D; "Intelligent Design Uncensored" by William A. Dembski, Ph.D; "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, Ph.D.
Keep asking questions. Best wishes! :~)
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
further more, who really believes we evolved from apes anymore? Do scientists even think that?
Report as
You have reported this
Swagger999:
1 year ago
We never thought we evolved from apes. We came from a same animal as ape (that animal is now extinct, out competed by use and the current apes)
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
Hi Swagger, I was commenting on part of the question where it says, "...Like, when they say apes formed into humans."
Report as
You have reported this
Sasquatch, swagger, that seems a moot point.
Redhot, overall that was a very fair answer. It seems that people jump too quickly to one theory or the other and rashly think that the other is all ridiculous. They browse around on some blogs or pet websites so they can poke at someone else's believe. I challenge people so they might open themselves up instead of being realism by cynical doubt. When one is cynical that person has no way to know if the doubt they have is honest or simply close-mindedness.
Redhot, overall that was a very fair answer. It seems that people jump too quickly to one theory or the other and rashly think that the other is all ridiculous. They browse around on some blogs or pet websites so they can poke at someone else's believe. I challenge people so they might open themselves up instead of being realism by cynical doubt. When one is cynical that person has no way to know if the doubt they have is honest or simply close-mindedness.
Report as
You have reported this
Redhot, oops...instead of being bound by cynical...
Sorry, too much multitasking. Lol
Sorry, too much multitasking. Lol
Report as
You have reported this
redhotpoker:
1 year ago
Hi squatch - sorry for the delayed reply. Origin of life science is generally focused on microbiological research, and more specifically on DNA. Most scientists engaged in this field have either developed serious reservations about, or openly abandoned, the chance and/or chemical affinity hypotheses based on the most recent evidence. This does not mean, however, that all are ready to abandon Darwin just yet.
As in most human endeavors, change takes time. You and blackrose are no doubt referring to the concept typified by illustrations published in most science textbooks over the years, which depict an ape-like creature evolving through a series of hypothetical intermediate forms into a modern human. Sadly, these iconic images have lingered and extended their influence long after the underlying hypotheses were demonstrated to be flawed. The short answer to your question then is "yes" - some scientist still hold to the traditional evolutionary ideology, i.e., humans evolved from ape-like progenitors.
Unfortunately some people fail to stay informed regarding recent discoveries, observations, and research. They also tend to limit their information sources to those most likely to appease their personal sensibilities. The danger in this approach is, of course, a perrenial, intractable nescience.
It's all fun stuff though. :~)
As in most human endeavors, change takes time. You and blackrose are no doubt referring to the concept typified by illustrations published in most science textbooks over the years, which depict an ape-like creature evolving through a series of hypothetical intermediate forms into a modern human. Sadly, these iconic images have lingered and extended their influence long after the underlying hypotheses were demonstrated to be flawed. The short answer to your question then is "yes" - some scientist still hold to the traditional evolutionary ideology, i.e., humans evolved from ape-like progenitors.
Unfortunately some people fail to stay informed regarding recent discoveries, observations, and research. They also tend to limit their information sources to those most likely to appease their personal sensibilities. The danger in this approach is, of course, a perrenial, intractable nescience.
It's all fun stuff though. :~)
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
via iPhone
It is interesting. I'm going to leave it to the scientists to keep on doing their research and publishing their theories-- I'm sticking to my interests of literature and art-- except when I come across intriguing articles and these Ask answers that pique my interest:) it's a few of you that keep it lively enough for me to read
Report as
You have reported this
redhotpoker:
1 year ago
There are so many interesting things to learn - it's hard to know where to dive in sometimes. Some people believe that in heaven we will inherently know "all things". I seriously hope not. Half the fun is the process of discovery. :~)
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
Cavemen existed thousands of years before that week that God created everything. But fear not! We can still thumb our noses at science and here's how: just like God created fossils with partially digested food in their stomachs and light already on its way toward us when He created us, He also brought forth His creation complete with Cavemen, cave paintings, primitive tools, you know... Anything to throw off the disbeliever scientists 6,000 years later so He and His faithful could laugh while they listen to their cries on their descent into Hell.
Report as
You have reported this
And you keep maintaining that you're not cynical? If so, then try a different tone and I might believe that your only just "interested" in these topics. If you keep interpreting the bible as though it's presents itself as a kind of science journal then your understanding of it will misrepresent. It is interesting that modern science claims that genetically there had to be one original pair of male and female humans. Many believers in God AND the bible accept evolution as a plausible theory. Depending on what "kind" of evolution one excepts and how one understands the passages that seem to bear on "how" the world came to be, there is no need to discount the bible or God revealed in it. The data collected by science is just that, data. Data is not evidence until a theory or model of interpretation of that data. In other words no one theory owns that data. Evolution in one theory which seems plausible, yet has problems as well. Does it really matter? It certainly doesn't cancel out a reasonable option to believe in the God revealed in the bible.
Report as
You have reported this
Its interesting to me that there are still literally cave men alive today.
Report as
You have reported this
It is truly absurd that God and "his" followers would laugh at anyone being separated for eternity from God. You are clearly slamming something that is at the very core not true biblical christianity.
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
Oh, come on. I get such a kick out of you believers and your sadistic side! That's not cynical, that's...spectator sports!
Report as
You have reported this
I have a sadistic side? Maybe I do, but how would you know?... is it because I question claims of no god or because I believe God is?
Re: cynical, I'm just pointing out how your comments sound to me...I have noticed other nonbelievers comments that certainly don't strike me as cynical (they may still be...I don't know). Maybe it's more your personality then. It's not a big deal to me, it just strikes me a bit strange that if you are so sure to know there is no God, then why comment, why fuss with it? I would imagine if it was so plain to me there was no God I would find much more amusing entertainment and constructive use of my time. It's fine, I guess it gives me an opportunity to talk with you about God.
Re: cynical, I'm just pointing out how your comments sound to me...I have noticed other nonbelievers comments that certainly don't strike me as cynical (they may still be...I don't know). Maybe it's more your personality then. It's not a big deal to me, it just strikes me a bit strange that if you are so sure to know there is no God, then why comment, why fuss with it? I would imagine if it was so plain to me there was no God I would find much more amusing entertainment and constructive use of my time. It's fine, I guess it gives me an opportunity to talk with you about God.
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
Re: why fuss with it: Because I enjoy this back and forth. Seriously, I was a faithful, dutiful little Christian soldier for almost 30 years of my life. I look back at my former self, and I'm just dumbfounded. What was I thinking? I don't know. But I also wonder what you could possibly be thinking. And I prod. I spent a good month discussing this topic with a guy on comics.com, which is now no more. It never gets dull, that's for sure.
Report as
You have reported this
greengables:
1 year ago
via iPhone
Let's see...."a dutiful little Christian soldier"..........sounds to me Novelt that all you were practicing was RELIGION! Did you disregard a "relationship" with God and just went through a 30 year exercise in religionosity? A true believer could never just walk away forever and turn from his love of his creator.
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
My church, the one I still go to, because it keeps the wife happy, was huge about the relationship instead of religion thing. "There's a place where religion finally DIES!" They play that song every worship. And everyone screams. (I actually really enjoy that song.) No gables, people can be true believers and leave religion. I'm sorry, but you can't retroactively decide that so and so was never truly a Christian just because they left the Church, or ... I don't know, had an affair, abused animals, cheated on their taxes, what have you.
Report as
You have reported this
Nove, perhaps its not about weather you've left "the Church" or not, since the scriptures ultimately refer to the followers and seekers of Christ as "being" the church. I know I've had to "loose my religion" in order really own what I believe...though in a sense I'm still "religious", but ultimately in an organic sense. Ask my wife and she'll tell you I'm actually very skeptical about many religious things. I would encourage you that you can have real doubts and yet still seek and follow God. I or Gable or even at times even you don't know your heart, but if God is there then he does know your heart and sees what you really are. I know I've looked back on a segment of my Christian life and wondered perhaps kind of like you do now...could I have really thought that way?lol I think I've learned to look past the facade elements of Christianity and discover a real and fruitful relationship with God. Until next time. Peace & Love
Report as
You have reported this
greengables:
1 year ago
via iPhone
I'm not talking about a Christian falling into sin Novelt. I'm talking about how you totally sound like like you have turned your back on God and the entire way you talk about Christianity. What else would one get from all your remarks? You shall know them by their fruits. So if you've dropped the religionosity, yet have a relationship with God, then you wold not be saying the things you say. Everyone here agrees with the relationship part, so.....?
Report as
You have reported this
greengables:
1 year ago
via iPhone
Also, once again I see by your remark under my answer that you don't even have your Biblical facts right. I think as you say... You just want to banter about nothing!
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
I'm sorry. How could I be wronger?...of course the Bible says God created man, so HOW could I possibly speculate that it might be the other way around?? How foolish of me.... I beg your pardon.
Report as
You have reported this
Blackrose, that is a valid question. However it at least partly depends on how you define what a "cave man" is. As someone I think already pointed out there are "cave men" in
modern times...maybe somebody forgot to tell them. Lol
As far as teaching in schools go, I think it really depends on how they "teach" it. I think schools should do their best to teach what ever different theories and beliefs there are. The problem is that there is simply too much to try to teach and fit it all in. I mean, how much homework do really want?! ;) Keep seeking and you will find.
Report as
You have reported this
sasquatch7575:
1 year ago
via iPhone
What a wonderful answer-- I've read some of your comments too. Very thought-provoking. Thank you
Report as
You have reported this
Well, thank you. I want to know what is true and share what I found to be true. ;)
Report as
You have reported this
greengables:
1 year ago
via iPhone
God created man period.
Report as
You have reported this
Noveltman:
1 year ago
Oh come on!! I didn't use scripture to make that statement!! You can't say any criticism of the Bible is invalid because it's "not supported by the Bible"! Seriously?
Report as
You have reported this
Other Questions
- Which of the Following Concepts are Associated With Karl Marx?
- How does Carl Jung Relate to Forrest Gump?
- Can Jailbreaking Your iPod Damage Its Memory and Stuff? Or Would I Just have to Res...
- Can I Use Centrum on Daily Basis for Vitamins, I'm 17 Yrs Old. my Doc Didn't Prescr...
- Do Mermaids Really Exist?
- If Animals Were Sentient and No Humans Were Around, How Would They Know What Specie...
- If You Hypnotize a Female to do Something, Would They do the Oppisite ?
- What Would Happen if You Got Mad During Class and Ran Away from School, Would You G...
- Why is the Deer Mouse Droppings Associated With Hantavirus ?
- Does Heaven & Hell Really Exist?
- Can I Ask Yahoo to Search An Ip Address Associated With An Email Account
Partner Sites:
Insider Pages
-
MerchantCircle
-
Urbanspoon
-
Ask Kids
-
Life123
-
Reference
-
Sendori
-
Thesaurus
That is good place start in my opinion ...to believe that is.
When I said 'I believe' I was just softening the statement of obvious fact. People won't listen to you if you sound too dogmatic.
You must have noticed that! - :)