re: 57 Maine School Districts Hide Kids’ Gender Dysphoria From Parents

Maine parents are fricking disgusting, evil, morally bankrupt pieces of shite of they do not sure the school district for everything it's worth, or accept the resignation of every official that had anything to do with this.

quote:

---

They are (quacks) because they aren’t engaging in science but rather making assertions that can’t be tested in reality

---

Like universal common ancestry?
Like abiogenesis?
Like the multiverse theory?
Like materialism?
Do you not see your own double standard?

quote:

---

What are you even arguing?

---

That atheism requires just as much faith as Christianity- ultimately. Right now though, I’m just trying to get you to see that at some point- UCA requires a leap of faith.

quote:

---

Evolution can happen rapidly,

---

How convenient. That’s not what Darwin thought. He said-

”It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life”.

Boy, natural selection sounds a lot like God. But I digress.

”We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were.”

“Rapid” evolution, evolved because Darwin’s theory didn’t accurately describe reality. That’s your foundation. Perhaps one day science will learn that all life “instantly evolved,” in a couple of days, into various kinds, at which point natural selection took over, and produced the millions of species that we see today.

quote:

---

Did he really write that? If so, when did he write it? All I could find in the search for that text was creationist websites and not any legitimate scientific papers or sources.

---

"The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative." (Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, page 198 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).)

Gee, I wonder why it’s so hard to find- except on creationist websites? This is a good time to remind you that even creationists don’t dispute natural selection and/or adaptation. Many scientists (atheist or otherwise) dispute the claim that natural selection + deep time can account for the complexity of life that we see today (which is indescribably more advanced than when Darwin proposed his theory).

Before I get back on track, I want to throw something in about materialism-

This ideology goes way back before any real science was done. Materialism is a philosophy, not a fact. It is a constructed worldview that denies the existence of the obvious immaterial aspects of reality.

quote:

---

What you posted doesn’t even mention Homo Habilis

---

Homo Habilis was discovered in the early 1960’s. Ernst Mayr wrote that book in 2004. Why wouldn’t he have said *except homo habilis? Because he obviously doesn’t consider HH a missing link.

quote:

---

because it does bridge the gap between Rudolfensis/Erectus and Australopithecus

---

Not according to Ernst Mayr.

quote:

---

I was aware of this many moons ago as a middle school aged kid

---

Now we’re getting somewhere. Your indoctrination began very early. You’ve been groomed from a young age.

quote:

---

The creationist website posting this nonsense is staffed by people who aren’t aware of common knowledge evidently.

---

Yeah. That must be it.

quote:

---

You can’t disprove evolution isn’t driven by the Flying Spaghetti Monster neither

---

Nobody’s arguing for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If they were, do you think they’d be willing to die for that belief? Before you come back with some lame 9/11 comparison- remember that the disciples were in a unique position, having firsthand experience and knowledge of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

All we can do is show what is true and what the causes are

---

All you can do is show what you believe to be true, and what you believe caused it.

quote:

---

Dude, please do some legit research on this subject rather than reading from William Lane Craig or answers in Genesis or whatever

---

Pretty sure Craig is some type of theistic evolutionist. AiG- I agree with you- to an extent. Many, if not most, of these creationist/scientist types take undue liberties when defending their claims, as does the other side. My intent in quoting any creationist/scientific material is not to attempt to pass it off as fact, necessarily, but to point out that there are legitimate reasons for legitimate scientists to question the current scientific paradigm. But, time and time again, you attack the source of the information, rather than attempt to discredit the information itself.

quote:

---

Very good. Check out Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. Evolution of whales

---

I’m aware of the claim. Here’s a good challenge to that claim-
Youtube Link

There are two rebuttals to critics:
Here, and here.

It all starts with indohyus (48mya), right? Then pakecitus (52mya)? But pakecitus is found 4million years earlier than indohyus, in the fossil record. And how many beneficial mutations would it take to get from pakecitus to a whale? How long would that take? Population genetics says “a long time. More time than was available.” Then there’s the 49 million year old fossil of a fully aquatic whale that destroys the evolutionary timeline. He also says that archaeopteryx shows up before theropods. And he smashes tiktaalik.

quote:

---

quote:

---

They are (quacks) because they aren’t engaging in science but rather making assertions that can’t be tested in reality

---

Like universal common ancestry?

---

Well that is already a scientific fact.

quote:

---

Like abiogenesis?

---

Hypothesis, different than evolution and irrelevant

quote:

---

Like the multiverse theory?

---

Don’t know anything about it and irrelevant to biological evolution and common ancestors.

quote:

---

Do you not see your own double standard?

---

I don’t have a double standard on this subject.

quote:

---

That atheism requires just as much faith as Christianity- ultimately

---

Dude come on. Not collecting stamps is a hobby and not playing football is a sport by your logic. Not having faith in a supernatural fantasy is not a religion.

quote:

---

Evolution can happen rapidly, How convenient. That’s not what Darwin thought

---

Darwin isn’t our Jesus and he was wrong about a lot but also right about a lot and we’ve learned a lot since Darwin. Darwin didn’t have DNA and he didn’t have fossils nor modern geological facts of nature. Come on man.

quote:

---

Gee, I wonder why it’s so hard to find- except on creationist websites?

---

I never heard of the guy to be honest. If that bullshite you posted really is from that guy, all I can say is he didn’t know WTF he’s talking about in 2004, because any halfwit studying biology at that time knew of Homo Habilis bridging the gap between Australopithecus and Homo Erectus.

quote:

---

Homo Habilis was discovered in the early 1960’s. Ernst Mayr wrote that book in 2004. Why wouldn’t he have said *except homo habilis? Because he obviously doesn’t consider HH a missing link.

---

Again I never heard of the guy and have you considered the possibility he was mistaken? Or maybe all those creationist sites made it up. Seriously can you find an actual white paper or unbiased source where this guy said that? I looked and couldn’t. Regardless, if he really said that, then he’s simply wrong and it doesn’t change any facts of nature.

quote:

---

Not according to Ernst Mayr.

---

And you provided no source for the quote. That’s a fail man.

quote:

---

Now we’re getting somewhere. Your indoctrination began very early. You’ve been groomed from a young age.

---

Groomed?

The only indoctrination I ever received was from the Catholic Church.

Are you maybe talking about education? I excelled in mathematics and science as a youngster and spent a lot of time in the library. I was particularly interested in physics and astronomy starting around 6 years old and probably knew more biological science at 12 than most biological science undergrads.

quote:

---

Nobody’s arguing for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If they were, do you think they’d be willing to die for that belief?

---

What do you mean? Are you implying that someone else died for their beliefs? Are you referring to “the 12”? If you are, what are your sources that they died for their beliefs? And would our buddy Foo accept those sources?

quote:

---

It all starts with indohyus (48mya), right? Then pakecitus (52mya)? But pakecitus is found 4million years earlier than indohyus, in the fossil record. And how many beneficial mutations would it take to get from pakecitus to a whale? How long would that take? Population genetics says “a long time.

---

I might watch your videos. I plan on it. Buts it’s late. I hope you realize that evolution is a web of species. For instance, Neanderthals came before us but weren’t our ancestral species, but we shared a common ancestor. You can’t look at fossils of species and put them in a single file line of progression.

Ciao

Edited to fix a laughing emoji.

ETA2:
Realize this objective and measured data.

The donkey and zebra genomes are about 99% similar. The morphology and anatomy are very similar too. They can hybridize, though the hybrids generally aren’t fertile. It is best estimated (not a guess, but using empirical data) that the last common ancestor of modern horses and donkeys lived about 2-3 million years ago. They are considered by scientists to be closely related but distinct species. Would you call them the same “kind” on Noah’s ark?

Both the donkey and zebra share about 98% of their genetic material with that of the horse. The last common ancestor of the horse and the zebra and donkey are estimated to be about 5-7 million years ago. A horse can still hybridize with a donkey (mule) and a zebra (zorse). In fact a horse has just 2 extra chromosomes compared to a donkey but they can still match up during egg fertilization. Like the zedonk/zonkey hybrids, they generally can’t reproduce because of the odd chromosome pairing disrupts meiosis. Still, there’s been at least 4 documented cases of a mule birthing a foal.. Surely a horse and a zebra are not the same species in the modern scientific context but are they the same “kind”?

Now applying the same methods to chimpanzees and humans, we can see we are 98.8% similar to them. Almost as close as a donkey is to a zebra, and much much more genetically similar than a horse is to a donkey. We have one less chromosome pair than chimps, and so do the other members of Homo we have sequenced (Neanderthals and Denisovans), and we can positively show how two chromosomes from our common ancestor fused and became one somewhere between the common ancestor of Homo sapiens/neanderthalensis/denisova and chimpanzees (and bonobos). And the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos was just slightly after our last common ancestor with them… chimps and bonobos share about 99% of their dna so they have about the same relationship as a donkey has to a zebra.

You think a chimp and a human are not the same “kind”. Just be honest and logically consistent when you claim a horse and a donkey are not the same “kind” though they can hybridize and even rarely produce fertile hybrids and are less genetically similar to each other than are chimps to human.

ETA3:
See how human chromosomes #2 compare to chimp/gorilla/orangutan chromosomes #2A and #2B. They’re a perfect match to human chromosomes #2 which contain all the ape chromosomes material of #2A and #2B and even includes centromeres and telomeres where they shouldn’t belong. A telomere marks the beginning and end of a chromosome and our #2 has telomeres right in the middle of it.


And both the 2 of humans and 2A and 2B of the other great apes includes the same junk nonfunctional genetic material in the same sequence. Junk dna like inactive ancestral genes which are turned on in other lesser primates but also ancient retrovirus insertions which we share in common with donkeys, cats, dogs, and porcupines.

Like seriously, pick up a real book on evolution of species and I promise you will learn something.

quote]Like universal common ancestry? Well that is already a scientific fact.[/quote]
No, it’s not. From AI assist:

Universal common ancestry is widely supported by scientific evidence, particularly in evolutionary biology, but it is considered a theory rather than an absolute fact. It posits that all living organisms share a common ancestor, which is supported by genetic, biochemical, and fossil evidence.

Evidence requires interpretation, and interpretation is subject to presuppositional bias. For example, if methodological naturalism is the lens through which you see the world, then that’s going to influence the way you evaluate evidence.

quote:

---

Like abiogenesis? Hypothesis, different than evolution and irrelevant

---

Yes, abiogenesis is often included in biology textbooks, particularly in discussions about the origin of life and its relationship to evolution. However, the extent and manner in which it is taught can vary significantly across different educational systems.

Gee, why would anyone want to teach such an unproven, irrelevant theory- as the necessary precursor to evolution?

I like this one even better:

Yes, abiogenesis is often included in high school biology textbooks as part of the discussion on the origin of life, although its treatment can vary significantly between different educational systems. The teaching of abiogenesis aims to provide students with an understanding of how life may have arisen from non-living matter, despite the ongoing debates and lack of direct empirical evidence for the process.

Yay science!

quote:

---

Like the multiverse theory? Don’t know anything about it and irrelevant to biological evolution and common ancestors

---

That’s right. I forgot- you’re an “oscillating universe” kind of guy, right?

quote:

---

I don’t have a double standard on this subject.

---

Oh. Ok.

quote:

---

Not collecting stamps is a hobby and not playing football is a sport by your logic. Not having faith in a supernatural fantasy is not a religion.

---

This is not an accurate comparison. Non-stamp collectors and non-football players don’t make claims like “stamps don’t exist,” or “there’s no such thing as football.” Atheism makes a truth claim- “there is no God.” It is a belief.

quote:

---

Darwin isn’t our Jesus

---

Lol. Ok buddy.

quote:

---

I never heard of the guy (Ernst Mayr) to be honest. If that bullshite you posted really is from that guy, all I can say is he didn’t know WTF he’s talking about in 2004, because any halfwit studying biology at that time knew of Homo Habilis bridging the gap between Australopithecus and Homo Erectus.

---

Ernst Walter Mayr (/ma??r/ MYRE; German: [??nst 'ma??]; 5 July 1904 – 3 February 2005)[1][2] was a German-American evolutionary biologist. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, philosopher of biology, and historian of science.[3] His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.
His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced), based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation, and was the theoretical underpinning for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. Mayr is sometimes credited with inventing modern philosophy of biology, particularly the part related to evolutionary biology, which he distinguished from physics due to its introduction of (natural) history into science.
Never heard of the guy, huh? Well, that idiot halfwit is who you have to thank for your current understanding of species.

quote:

---

And you provided no source for the quote. That’s a fail man.

---

I did. Go back and read the quote again. It’s from his book written in 2004. I thought for sure you would have seen that. It’s written in English. But just for redundant clarity’s sake-
You can buy it on Amazon for about $40.

To be continued…

… continued

quote:

---

The only indoctrination I ever received was from the Catholic Church.

---

Wrong thread. Seriously though, I wish it would’ve taken. I’d much prefer to be having friendly theological discussions with you as a believer. I hope one day we will.

quote:

---

Are you maybe talking about education?

---

Yes. We are indoctrinating children (starting in junior high) into an unproven worldview that absolutely has an agenda- to deconstruct faith in God. You are living proof. Also, this:

”Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” — Dick Dawkins

Say, you know who else was a huge fan of Darwin? This guy named Karl Marx, and - wait for it… Yep. You guessed right. Its Hitler. Let’s go ahead and throw Lenin and Mao Zedong in for good measure.

I know this doesn’t disprove Darwin’s theory. But it shows that Darwin’s theory is an integral part of a destructive worldview.

quote:

---

Are you implying that someone else died for their beliefs?

---

Ever heard of Nero? In AD 54 he was lightning his garden paths by burning Christians alive.

quote:

---

Are you referring to “the 12”? If you are, what are your sources that they died for their beliefs?

---

How did the Apostles die? Admittedly, the weight of the evidence varies. But, the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus is well attested by reliable historians like Josephus and Eusebius (quoting 2nd century historian Hegesippus). It’s well known that world was very hostile to Christianity in the first 300 or so years. It’s beyond reasonable to accept the idea that the apostles faced severe persecution. What makes you think they didn’t? Do you have some historical evidence or documents that show Peter and Paul sipping margaritas in Madagascar or something?

quote:

---

Surely a horse and a zebra are not the same species in the modern scientific context but are they the same “kind”?

---

Seriously though, I would think that a horse and a zebra are the same kind. Different species. What do I win?

quote:

---

Now applying the same methods to chimpanzees and humans, we can see we are 98.8% similar to them

---

Is it though? That’s very misleading. That number was derived from a 1 to 1 comparison of a single protein. When the entire genome is considered- we get varying results. This article from Caltech says that it’s only 95%. Biologist, Richard Buggs
has estimated that there is only an 84% similarity between the two genomes. Regardless, even if we are “98%” (we aren’t) similar- that’s 98% of over 3 billion. That means there’s (at least) 60,000,000 genetic differences between humans and chimps. That’s not insignificant. It doesn’t require a degree in biology to recognize that it’s the differences that matter- not the similarities. Again, you see similarities as evidence of UCA. I see the similarities as evidence of a Common Designer. Both conclusions are unfalsifiable. Both positions are faith-based.

quote:

---

You think a chimp and a human are not the same “kind”. Just be honest and logically consistent when you claim a horse and a donkey are not the same “kind” though they can hybridize and even rarely produce fertile hybrids and are less genetically similar to each other than are chimps to human.

---

I honestly don’t know enough to be confident, but I would think that donkeys and horses are the same kind. As far as humans/chimps go- I don’t care if we are 99% similar. There’s obviously more differences in reality between humans and chimps, than there is between horses and donkeys.

Yeah, who and what (loaded) questions determine said Gender Dysphoria? An honest Judge will slap down a crooked lawyer who pushes “leading questions “. Mainers have lost it and it won’t be cake to get back.

quote:

---

No, it’s not. From AI assist:

---

Yes, universal common ancestor of all known life forms on earth is established fact.

quote:

---

From AI assist: Universal common ancestry is widely supported by scientific evidence, particularly in evolutionary biology, but it is considered a theory rather than an absolute fact

---

AI? Really? You must get tired of saying evolution is “only a theory”. Come on, you know what a scientific theory is. But in case you don’t.

quote:

---

Yes, abiogenesis is often included in biology textbooks, particularly in discussions about the origin of life and its relationship to evolution. However, the extent and manner in which it is taught can vary significantly across different educational systems.

---

Why move the goal posts? Evolution of species and universal common ancestor of all life on earth is a fact, regardless of of how life formed by natural or supernatural cause.

Maybe abiogenesis as a hypothesis is in the text books because it is one of the more if not most rational hypotheses for a natural explanation to the origin of life, and might be testable and falsifiable. Saying “we don’t know so God did it” isn’t science. We may never know how life began on earth, and that is ok. But evolution of species is as factual as me releasing an apple from elevation and knowing it will fall.

quote:

---

Gee, why would anyone want to teach such an unproven, irrelevant theory- as the necessary precursor to evolution?

---

There you go again mixing up hypothesis which is a hunch, a somewhat of a guess, with the highest degree of a body of facts and explanations about natural phenomena all supported by empirical evidence.

quote:

---

That’s right. I forgot- you’re an “oscillating universe” kind of guy, right?

---

I was interested in astronomy and cosmology as a kid but today I study more biology, technology, and religion than anything. The universe model I support might have to come later if I ever decide to read up on the latest tech findings.

quote:

---

This is not an accurate comparison. Non-stamp collectors and non-football players don’t make claims like “stamps don’t exist,” or “there’s no such thing as football.” Atheism makes a truth claim- “there is no God.” It is a belief.

---

I think you are mistaken. The vast majority of atheists say “I don’t know” and “I don’t believe in your gods of your ancient mythical fables”. So what if there is or isn’t supernatural beings. It doesn’t change the truthful nature of biological evolution of species on Earth.

quote:

---

I did. Go back and read the quote again. It’s from his book written in 2004. I thought for sure you would have seen that. It’s written in English. But just for redundant clarity’s sake-

---

Thank you for posting the book name. I read about 6 pages of it and realized you never read it minus the quote the creationists cite. You would have mentioned the guy was an atheist and that he considered Habilis to be an Australopithecine, if you knew anything about the subject matter you’d have known modern anthropology in the last 20 years since Ernst died has shown that Habilis overlapped earlier Australopithecines and also overlapped in time the two species (Rudolfensus and Erectus) Ernst mentioned about that “unabridged gap” of fossils.

Let me show you visually.


This might also be a good visual aid.


What anthropologists argue about now is which species are in our direct lineage and which are evolutionary dead ends.

Oh, and you are an atheist too. You don’t believe in Zeus or Poseidon or Thor or Wodin or Osiris or Ahura Mazda or Vishnu. You don’t believe in thousands of gods man conjured in his imagination. I just also don’t believe in one more than you.

quote:

---

AI? Really? You must get tired of saying evolution is “only a theory”. Come on, you know what a scientific theory is. But in case you don’t.

---

I don’t say it’s “only” a theory. I’m well aware of the difference between the everyday usage of the word, and the scientific use. I’m well aware that you treat these theories the way a devout Christian treats Christian doctrine. I also believe that your brain malfunctions when faced with this obvious connection. Materialism is a helluva drug.

quote:

---

Why move the goal posts?

---

Like yall did, when you quickly realized that Darwin’s theory was inadequate? That’s not what I’m doing. I’m showing you how the foundation of your worldview (scientific materialism) fails miserably at the onset. You have not a single observation of how life can/has created nonlife- yet it is the necessary precursor to the equally unproven theory of UCA. Your theory asks that we accept one miracle, and then nature takes over. It is, indeed, a double standard.

quote:

---

Maybe abiogenesis as a hypothesis is in the text books

---

Sad attempt to defend obvious indoctrination. I would ask you to do better, but I also realize that your position is logically and evidentially indefensible.

quote:

---

because it is one of the more if not most rational hypotheses for a natural explanation to the origin of life, and might be testable and falsifiable.

---

Couple things. Natural explanations alone cannot account for much of what we experience (love, respect, freaking math, etc)in reality. You are constantly faced with the existence of the immaterial (consciousness) world. You are intentionally eliminating possible explanations (immaterial) due strictly to your inability to measure these things. Also, your claim that abiogenesis “might” be testable/falsifiable is nothing more than a statement of faith.

quote:

---

Saying “we don’t know so God did it” isn’t science.

---

I agree. And so do the vast majority of Christian scientists. Science answers the “how.” Religion (Christianity) explains the “why.” You can strawman all you want (there’s plenty to choose from), but the fact remains that there are many well-credentialed, serious scientists (theists and atheists) who question the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life that we see today.

quote:

---

We may never know how life began on earth, and that is ok.

---

Then stop teaching it to kids like you do. Just take abiogenesis out of the textbooks. How hard is that? Why not? Because it’s literally the atheists’ only hope (faith).

quote:

---

But evolution of species is as factual as me releasing an apple from elevation and knowing it will fall.

---

Thank you. That’s a perfect example of how you conflate known facts with make believe. You can go into a lab and prove the former- over and over. Yet the latter has never been observed. I dare you to quote Lenski’s experiment as evidence of UCA.

quote:

---

There you go again mixing up hypothesis which is a hunch, a somewhat of a guess

---

Thanks again. So, we’re teaching a guess in high school textbooks. Sounds like indoctrination to me.

quote:

---

I was interested in astronomy and cosmology as a kid

---

I’m not taking away from biology, but that’s some really interesting stuff. Even Dawkins said something like that the fine tuning argument was compelling/interesting. Obviously not enough to overcome his desire to be Lord of his own life, but, compelling nonetheless.

quote:

---

The universe model I support might have to come later if I ever decide to read up on the latest tech findings.

---

You should. Your understanding of life is incomplete without it. It’s like you’re trying to evaluate the design of an automobile with only an understanding of the braking system.

quote:

---

I think you are mistaken

---

I m not. It’s more simple than you make it out to be.

quote:

---

The vast majority of atheists say

---

Does it really matter what people say? Or, does logic dictate reality?

quote:

---

So what if there is or isn’t supernatural beings

---

There are. But, we’re talking about “the” God. Are you employed? Do you exhibit this behavior in the presence of your employer? Of course not. You do what you are designed to do- obey authority (or suffer the consequences otherwise). It’s only in this “credit system” that you feel empowered to keep on swiping- knowing you can’t pay the bill. You need spiritual DOGE- we all do.

quote:

---

Thank you for posting the book name. I read about 6 pages of it and realized you never read it minus the quote the creationists cite

---

You read 6 pages and then criticize me for not reading the whole book. Classic Squirrelmeister. If nothing else- you are consistent.

quote:

---

You would have mentioned the guy was an atheist and that he considered Habilis to be an Australopithecine,

---

You’re such a staunch supporter- I expected you would have known. I don’t care what he thought- beyond what he said- that there is no fossil evidence linking apes and humans.

quote:

---

if you knew anything about the subject matter

---

Here’s what’s important to know:
- nobody knows when the candle was lit. That’s it. From there, we all can make many unfalsifiable assumptions- but in literally every instance, we lack the confidence of mathematical (or logical) proof. Our positions are equally faith based. Your inability to grasp this concept is comical to me- only because I believe that you will eventually figure it out.

quote:

---

anthropology in the last 20 years since Ernst died

---

Could be compared to Clay and Buck taking over for Rush. Is that an improvement?

quote:

---

What anthropologists argue about now

---

… is a whole lot more than what you just said. Bro- it’s so obvious that you are unwilling to engage anything that threatens your safe space.

quote:

---

Oh, and you are an atheist too.

---

My advice- stop this. Are you debating me, or just trying to win cheap internet points on a thread that no one reads but me and you?

Love you, bro.