• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

gnostic

The Lost One
Have you witnessed a species being changed by a mutation or by natural selection?
The same could be asked of you:

Have you witness God creating the world, sun, land, vegetation, animals and humans?

Reading and believing a book about creation is not the same as witnessing these mythological events.

Again not true. There is no evidence for a BB, and you cant provide one example of a species being changed. I can prove more in the first chapter of Genesis, than you can in the whole TOE.

Judging by what you are saying here, you don't know evidence is.

Scientific evidence is based on what can be quantified and measured and observed.

Observed don't always just referred to our perceptual senses, like sight, hearing, touch or smell, because sometimes we cannot see or hear or feel what we are investigating, therefore we used some tools to assist with the measuring.

For instance, we can see a electric wire or electronic circuitry, but we cannot see the electricity, we cannot measure what we see or hear, but if we were to touch expose live wire, we risk electrocution. To measure what cannot see, we might use instrument like a or similar device,measuring the current, resistance, voltage and power.

And though we cannot see live changes of past species of animals and plants, it is possible to compare species against each other from remains and fossils.

To say there are no evidences in the theory of evolution, only showed your level of incompetency and ignorance in palaeontology and stratigraphy, and even just basic biology.

And when you compare species, you don't compare dogs to cats or horses. You would compare them against other canine (domesticated dogs) and canine-like creatures (wolves, jackals, coyotes, etc). And you would compare them by where they live, examining the terrains and climates.

For instance, comparing the wild canines, like wolves and jackals.

The jackals lived in the arid areas, where water are scarcer and climate can be very hot during the day all year round, but very cold at night. Living here, if there are any fur on their hides, they are short or not exist at all.

But a gray wolf lived in more temperate or colder regions, requiring longer and heavier fur. Wolves are also lot larger than jackals, having more body fats than jackals, and like their thicker fur, to help them insulated them from the cold. The jackals are leaner and don't require as much body fat, because they don't require such insulation from the cold.

That all tell me that the jackals and wolves shared common ancestry, but at some point, back in time, there have been divergence between the two, each developing body that are better suited for the natural environments they lived in. (Environment means the geographical terrains, the availability of cover, of food and water, and the climates).

In another word, the environment is what make animals evolve. They have to adapt to the environment, passing the right genes to offspring, by choosing the appropriate mates. It is just like genetic, but here the animals selectively choose which to mate.

That's Natural Selection at work.

Another example, would be divergence of the brown bears, where the polar bears became a separate species to the brown bears, because they live in different zone with different climate to the habitats of the brown bears.

The polar bears, though similar in many ways o the brown bears, but because they living in much cooler climate of the Arctic region, the polar bears have to develope different morphology and phenotypic characteristics, different metabolism and different dietary, different social behaviour, and different living patterns.

Again, these different species of bears, brown bears and polar bears, showed Natural Selection at work.

Do you want another example?

How about the different species of tortoises living on the islands of Galápagos.

There are the smaller dome-shaped shell tortoises living on one island, but in another island, are the giant tortoises, with different shape shells (known as saddleback shells), and long legs and necks.

The reasons why the tortoises show markedly different physical characteristics, is because of again, the environments they lived in are different, despite been neighbouring islands.

Not looking at the evidences, just show that are unwilling to learn biology.

Seriously, what science does the bible teach? "God did it" explains nothing, and it tests nothing.

Creationism is simply based on believing in myths and superstitions.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Not true. The revealed message is in the Bible.

It reveal nothing about nature.

None of the books in the bible teach us anything about biology; it can't even explain anatomy of human body.

It's best health tip is not to eat pork or any other unclean animal. But that's only because of the arid climate, so pork don't keep very well. But we live in the 21st century, where there are refrigeration, and even without, for centuries the Italians have the know-how to keep pork longer without fridges, eg through smoking or pickling.

And it certainly can't teach anyone astronomy, let alone the universe and the physical cosmology.

Genesis 1 say that god created the earth and heavens, but that's not explaining anything. There is nothing to learn from that first verse.

Then it list the day, in term of evening and morning. But how can there be morning or day, without the sun, for the 1st 3 days. The first day god created light to divide the day from night, without the sun. So what is the light source, if it isn't the sun?

Did light from the 1st day just out of nothing?

If the author had iota of intelligence he would know that there would be no daylight without the sun.

If you want to understand nature, then learn mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. If you want to learn astronomy, get a telescope.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
The same could be asked of you:

Have you witness God creating the world, sun, land, vegetation, animals and humans?

It is not the same at all. That we have a universe is obvious and you can't esplain how it originated.

Reading and believing a book about creation is not the same as witnessing these mythological events.

Stick to the subject. This is not about religion, it is about science.

Judging by what you are saying here, you don't know evidence is.

Scientific evidence is based on what can be quantified and measured and observed.

Wonderful. Show me the observed evidence for a mutation or natural selection changing a species into a different species.

Observed don't always just referred to our perceptual senses, like sight, hearing, touch or smell, because sometimes we cannot see or hear or feel what we are investigating, therefore we used some tools to assist with the measuring.

That is pure evolutionary rhetoric. You don't have any observed evidence, so you build your straw man. "Observed" by definition is something that is seen, not perceived.

For instance, we can see a electric wire or electronic circuitry, but we cannot see the electricity, we cannot measure what we see or hear, but if we were to touch expose live wire, we risk electrocution. To measure what cannot see, we might use instrument like a or similar device,measuring the current, resistance, voltage and power.

Electric current can be seen and measured. You are just beating around the bush to avoid presenting me an example of a mechanism that causes a change of species.

And though we cannot see live changes of past species of animals and plants, it is possible to compare species against each other from remains and fossils.

Comparing a separate and distinct species to another separate and distinct species is not evidence they were ever connected. Even some of you experts, Gould and Mayr, acknowledge the fossil record does not support evolution,

To say there are no evidences in the theory of evolution, only showed your level of incompetency and ignorance in palaeontology and stratigraphy, and even just basic biology.

Talk is cheap---post some evidence that supports evolution.

And when you compare species, you don't compare dogs to cats or horses. You would compare them against other canine (domesticated dogs) and canine-like creatures (wolves, jackals, coyotes, etc). And you would compare them by where they live, examining the terrains and climates.[/QUOTE]

Are you really trying to show that different varieties of the same species is evidence of evolution? Do you not understand that evolution requires a change of species? Also, climate and terrains are not a mechanism for a change of species.

For instance, comparing the wild canines, like wolves and jackals.

The jackals lived in the arid areas, where water are scarcer and climate can be very hot during the day all year round, but very cold at night. Living here, if there are any fur on their hides, they are short or not exist at all.

But a gray wolf lived in more temperate or colder regions, requiring longer and heavier fur. Wolves are also lot larger than jackals, having more body fats than jackals, and like their thicker fur, to help them insulated them from the cold. The jackals are leaner and don't require as much body fat, because they don't require such insulation from the cold.

That all tell me that the jackals and wolves shared common ancestry, but at some point, back in time, there have been divergence between the two, each developing body that are better suited for the natural environments they lived in. (Environment means the geographical terrains, the availability of cover, of food and water, and the climates).[/QUOTE]

You have only described the nautral condition of each species. If the gray wolf need a heavier fur, to get it, the evolutionary process would have taken to long and the species would have gone the way of the dinos.

]In another word, the environment is what make animals evolve. They have to adapt to the environment, passing the right genes to offspring, by choosing the appropriate mates. It is just like genetic, but here the animals selectively choose which to mate.

The parents can only pass genes they have. If they do not have a gene for heavier fur, they will never have a kid with heavier fur.

That's Natural Selection at work.

"Even if what you say is right, and it is not, the species might survive, but it will remain the same species. No evolution. In fact natural selection use to be called "the survival of the fittest.

Another example, would be divergence of the brown bears, where the polar bears became a separate species to the brown bears, because they live in different zone with different climate to the habitats of the brown bears.

The polar bears, though similar in many ways o the brown bears, but because they living in much cooler climate of the Arctic region, the polar bears have to develope different morphology and phenotypic characteristics, different metabolism and different dietary, different social behaviour, and different living patterns.

Again, these different species of bears, brown bears and polar bears, showed Natural Selection at work.

Do you want another example?

So far you have not offered an example of a mechanism for a change of species. A wolf with longer , heavier fur is still a wolf.

How about the different species of tortoises living on the islands of Galápagos.

There are the smaller dome-shaped shell tortoises living on one island, but in another island, are the giant tortoises, with different shape shells (known as saddleback shells), and long legs and necks.

The reasons why the tortoises show markedly different physical characteristics, is because of again, the environments they lived in are different, despite been neighbouring islands.

All interesting but now you need a link showing they all came from the same paretnts. All you have done is tell about separate and sisince species,

Not looking at the evidences, just show that are unwilling to learn biology.

If you think an offspring can acquire a characteristic for which neither parent had the gene for, it is you who needs to learn about biology.

Seriously, what science does the bible teach? "God did it" explains nothing, and it tests nothing.

Telll lyhou what, nest spring plant some corn, and in about 90 days, after it kind, will suddenly come to life for you. Not only will you ALWAYS get corn, you will ALWAYS get the exact species you planted. Of course even what you see and can repeat will not convince you, will it?

Creationism is simply based on believing in myths and superstitions.

Do you have a better idea as to how matter created itself out of nothing and how lifeless elements created life? So until you do, it is your beliefs that are the myth.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The problems are not about the similarities, it is about the differences. As long as DNA can identify the specific species, there is no scientific link between apes and man. There is also no fossil record linking apes to man, not one. If one can't be found in over 100 years, it is because there are none. If evolution was true, the great number of fossils would be intermediates and again you have none.
First of all, all life forms, or so it appears, are "intermediates", including you and I and your dog. Evolution never stops, and over the last century especially we've managed to at least partially "fill" a great many gaps.

Secondly, the evidence is overwhelming that we have a common ancestor with the ape line, and it appears to be most likely going back around 6-7 million years b.p. The recent Chad find has so many shared ape/human characteristics that scientists have not been able to classify it as being either human or ape.

Thirdly, evolution is just plain old common sense, namely that all material objects change over time, and genes are material objects.

And finally, even though you might be skeptical of an ape/human connection, the overwhelming scientific community certainly isn't any longer. Many decades ago, yes; now, no.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In order not to accept ID, there has to be objective evidence that matter can create itself out of nothing and that life can originate from lifeless elements. Do you have any or do you just accept it by faith alone? I don't need faith to see part of God's creation. You need faith to accept how it happened.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God.
I do not assume anything on this one way or the other [see my signature statement at the bottom of my posts], but obviously you do.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Are you really trying to show that different varieties of the same species is evidence of evolution? Do you not understand that evolution requires a change of species? Also, climate and terrains are not a mechanism for a change of species.

Those examples I gave you about the canine, bears and tortoises, are about changes in species, you fool.

I am talking about changes in species within a genus.

For instance, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is the species of genus Ursus (bear), while the brown bear (Ursus arctos) is the species of the genus Ursus.

There were divergences between these 2 species of the genus Ursus, occurred around about 603,000 years ago.

The polar bears and the brown bears are different more than just the obvious differences in colours, omega2xx.

It is Natural Selection, where the polar bears living mostly on the polar Arctic ice, developed different morphology and phenotypic characteristics to the brown bears.
  1. The polar bears have not only white furs; the furs are thicker and more waterproof than the furs of the brown bears. Which (A) allow the polar bears to swim icy sea and withstand the cold that the brown bears couldn't. The brown bears can swim too, but in lakes and rivers, not on open sea, and but these water are nowhere as cold as the sea of the Arctic waters. And (B) the thickness of the polar bear's also enable them to withstand the polar winds, that allow them to hunt even in winds that exceed 100 km-per-hour.
  2. The brown fur is more suitable for brown bear to hunt preys in the forest. But there are no forest on the Arctic ice, so the white fur offers natural camouflage for a polar bear to hunt. That's itself is Natural Selection.
  3. The furs are not the only things that offer polar bears the advantages over the brown bears, against the cold. The polar bears also have far more body fats. If you ever studied biology (and even if did, I doubt that you were ever good in the subject), you would know that body fats offered natural insulation from the cold. So the polar bears with thicker and more waterproof fur, plus the more body fats, allow these species to hunt all year long, and that bring me to another point, omega2xx.
  4. Like I said, the polar bears can hunt all year, because the cold don't bother them that much. The brown bears have to hibernate in the cold seasons (winter). The polar bears don't require hibernation. So the different feeding patterns are another difference between two species.
  5. Speaking of feeding patterns and bringing back my previous point about body fat. The brown bears will anything that they can find, and even fruits from forest if need be, but they usually preferred meat. But in the Arctic regions with no trees, there are no fruit. And the polar bears preferred sea seals, because like them, seals have a lot of body fats. Consuming animals (seals) with high fat contents, also help polar bears to make more body fat in their own body.
The brown bears and polar bears are different, as the examples I have given above. And they diverged from one another, 600,000 years ago. That's during the last Ice Age, and just so you know, the ice sheets didn't cover everything, because the last Ice Age wasn't global. Most regions didn't see any ice sheet.

The environments (terrains and climates), the availability of food and water, their feeding patterns, their choosing to mate with their own species, to better chances of their offspring and descendants survival, are all factors that can change their bodies, not only to look different, but offer them defence mechanisms, all of these are indicators of Natural Selection.

I am not even a biologist, and yet I know what I am talking about more than you.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
So far you have not offered an example of a mechanism for a change of species. A wolf with longer , heavier fur is still a wolf.

Holy crap!

You're seriously lacking in education on animal biology.

Where do you think dogs (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris ) come from, omega2xx?

They are the descendants of the gray wolf (Canis lupus).

Dogs have changed, due to early domestication, and diverged from the Canis lupus (gray wolf) around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. Most would say that the dogs are subspecies to the gray wolves.

Wolves belonged to genus Canis, just as dogs do, but dogs are descendants of gray wolf, and went their separate, and dogs are no longer called wolves.

The jackal is a species within the genus (Canis) as that of gray wolf. But jackals have split into three different branches, hence you have a species known as golden jackal, (Canis aureus) living in Eurasia, and the other two in Africa, the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) and side-striped jackal (Canis adustus).

And when my previous reply about the jackals and wolves, I was mostly focused on jackals of sub-Sahara regions, just to show natural selection in very different environments.

The golden jackals are more closely related to the gray wolves than they are to black-backed jackals and side-striped jackals. So you have to ask why golden jackals are more different to other jackals, but more similar to the gray wolves and coyotes?

Sorry, but this "a wolf is still a wolf" argument don't hold much weights, where it can be seen how they are related to one species of jackal, while the dogs are considered descendants of the gray wolf, and diverged from them some tens of thousands of years.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Electric current can be seen and measured.

You have taken my example of electricity out of context, omega2xx.

I said that you can't see electricity on live wire or exposed circuit, just by "looking" at either of them.

And you can't measure electric current by looking or feeling them; no you would require an instrument or device to measure them.

Stop twisting my words, omega.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Interes... wait, that claim is based on an experiment and observations, the same thing you're arguing for, not a holy book like you said! Or did I read what the link says wrong?

I'm confused, are you providing sources to prove against you own argument?

Please advise!

You asked who believe in a flat earth, and I posted the entry point.
Now, if you read carefully the wikipedia entry, you will see that their "observations" are motivated by the contradictions between modern planetology and what the Bible says.

Same thing with ID (or SD, depending on what we consider intelligent or stupid) and virtually all oppositions to the theory of evolution by natural selection, whose evidence is of such proportions to compete with the theory that the earth is a spheroid.

Ciao

- viole
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
You asked who believe in a flat earth, and I posted the entry point.
Now, if you read carefully the wikipedia entry, you will see that their "observations" are motivated by the contradictions between modern planetology and what the Bible says.

Same thing with ID (or SD, depending on what we consider intelligent or stupid) and virtually all oppositions to the theory of evolution by natural selection, whose evidence is of such proportions to compete with the theory that the earth is a spheroid.

Ciao

- viole

Understood.

It is still observation and and experiment, regardless to what motivates it. Almost all observations and experiments these days are based on other input.

You did say because "wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book", which is of course why you gave the example about the flat earth, which is why I asked about it to see how your example relates to it, and you provided info (the link) that turned out to not do that; i.e. relate to "wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book".

If they (the Flat Earthers in the link) are so, then why would they bother to observe and experiment? That's not "wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book". I know the answers to those already and I'm not trying to prove anything to you (get off-topic) with all of the above regarding believing in a book. All I'm saying is that the link you provided only means that experiments and observations (e.g. your observations on monkeys) are not necessarily always reliable and credible to prove a point, since their (the Flat Earthers) "experiments" and "observations" try to prove something wrong.

Don't get me wrong, "experiments" and "observations" are the right attempts to prove claims when there is doubt, I know that. All I'm saying is that practicing them coming up with a conclusion does not mean that what's realized is the right thing. It also has to be reasonable.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Understood.

It is still observation and and experiment, regardless to what motivates it. Almost all observations and experiments these days are based on other input.

You did say because "wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book", which is of course why you gave the example about the flat earth, which is why I asked about it to see how your example relates to it, and you provided info (the link) that turned out to not do that; i.e. relate to "wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book".

If they (the Flat Earthers in the link) are so, then why would they bother to observe and experiment? That's not "wholeheartedly believe in a Holy Book". I know the answers to those already and I'm not trying to prove anything to you (get off-topic) with all of the above regarding believing in a book. All I'm saying is that the link you provided only means that experiments and observations (e.g. your observations on monkeys) are not necessarily always reliable and credible to prove a point, since their (the Flat Earthers) "experiments" and "observations" try to prove something wrong.

Don't get me wrong, "experiments" and "observations" are the right attempts to prove claims when there is doubt, I know that. All I'm saying is that practicing them coming up with a conclusion does not mean that what's realized is the right thing. It also has to be reasonable.

And what could be more reasonable than evolution by natural selection? It is one of the simplest ideas around. And, in my scientific experience, simple things supported by a huge amount of evidence and that explain a lot, tend to be true.

For sure, it is vastly simpler, and more intuitive, than things like relativity or quantum mechanics, which seems to enjoy a sort of immunity. But why is that?

Is it ego? Something like: I don't care about electrons and black holes, but I cannot accept to have a common ancestor with cucumbers, ergo evolution is false. Or is that because of belief in a God that cannot possibly condemn consumption of pork by beings that share an ancestor with it? If it is the latter, you have my sympathy, since I strongly believe that evolution by natural selection is incompatible with any of the Abrahamic God flavours. You say, ergo evolutions is false, while I say ergo the Abrahamic God is. And I have the edge of the mountain of evidence. The big elephant in the china store.

Look, you, like me (not a biologist by education), have only a few alternatives

1) you trust the opinion of the vast majority of experts in this area
2) you don't because you do not like it. It looks incredible, or contradicts some ancient books assumed to be true, for some reason. And therefore it is false.
3) You do your homework. You check it yourself. Go through the evidence, find loopholes, if any, and come back with something that might make you very famous or, at worst, allowed you to learn something new.

So, what do you choose?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
And what could be more reasonable than evolution by natural selection? It is one of the simplest ideas around. And, in my scientific experience, simple things supported by a huge amount of evidence and that explain a lot, tend to be true.

For sure, it is vastly simpler, and more intuitive, than things like relativity or quantum mechanics, which seems to enjoy a sort of immunity. But why is that?

Is it ego? Something like: I don't care about electrons and black holes, but I cannot accept to have a common ancestor with cucumbers, ergo evolution is false. Or is that because of belief in a God that cannot possibly condemn consumption of pork by beings that share an ancestor with it? If it is the latter, you have my sympathy, since I strongly believe that evolution by natural selection is incompatible with any of the Abrahamic God flavours. You say, ergo evolutions is false, while I say ergo the Abrahamic God is. And I have the edge of the mountain of evidence. The big elephant in the china store.

Look, you, like me (not a biologist by education), have only a few alternatives

1) you trust the opinion of the vast majority of experts in this area
2) you don't because you do not like it. It looks incredible, or contradicts some ancient books assumed to be true, for some reason. And therefore it is false.
3) You do your homework. You check it yourself. Go through the evidence, find loopholes, if any, and come back with something that might make you very famous or, at worst, allowed you to learn something new.

So, what do you choose?

Ciao

- viole

Um... all this only confuse the point we're talking about. You said your observation is the proof of the claim that humans and chimps share common ancestor because your observation and theories imply so, and I'm begging to differ and used the flat earther's link you provided for this. Suddenly you added irrelevant holy books and Abrahamic stuff to it, of which I'm not bringing any claims. Is it because you don't like them? I don't mind if you don't, and I'm not saying you can't go off-topic like this in this thread, I just want our discussion to derail like that.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Um... all this only confuse the point we're talking about. You said your observation is the proof of the claim that humans and chimps share common ancestor because your observation and theories imply so, and I'm begging to differ and used the flat earther's link you provided for this. Suddenly you added irrelevant holy books and Abrahamic stuff to it, of which I'm not bringing any claims. Is it because you don't like them? I don't mind if you don't, and I'm not saying you can't go off-topic like this in this thread, I just want our discussion to derail like that.

It is not that I do not like them. I actually enjoy reading the Bible every now and then. I also enjoy reading the Odyssey and all those stories about Zeus. I also like Star Wars and its heroes. I just find it puzzling that anyone could believe the narrative literally. And that includes my past self.

And my point is very simple: the evidence that evolution is true is comparable with the evidence that the earth is not flat.

And you do not really a degree in biology to see that.

Ciao

- viole
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
It is not that I do not like them. I actually enjoy reading the Bible every now and then. I also enjoy reading the Odyssey and all those stories about Zeus. I also like Star Wars and its heroes. I just find it puzzling that anyone could believe the narrative literally. And that includes my past self.

And my point is very simple: the evidence that evolution is true is comparable with the evidence that the earth is not flat.

And you do not really a degree in biology to see that.

Ciao

- viole

But the evolution at hand is a theory, not a fact. The "fact" part is only believed by comparing similar traits. All living beings share similar traits. Just sharing DNA similarities does not necessarily mean sharing ancestry.

Off-topic:
Note how I'm not telling you it isn't because if my religion, I'm doing so by trying to reason with you. That's why I think bringing holy book and Abrahamic stuff was irrelevant. Sorry if I sounded rude asking if you didn't like them.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Well, of course I consider it the truth. Just by simple observation. You could actually infer evolution, even without scientists around. That is what some philosophers did before Jesus.

Ever seen a gorilla? Or a chimp? Do you think us and gorilla, and the gorilla and the chimps, and us and the chimps, developed their undeniable common traits independently from each other on completely independent trees of life? That is so credible as the anthropomorphic aliens speaking English you see in Star Trek.

What do you think are the chances of that? I would say they are vastly lower than the Universe arising by chance, as you guys would put it.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
But the evolution at hand is a theory, not a fact. The "fact" part is only believed by comparing similar traits. All living beings share similar traits. Just sharing DNA similarities does not necessarily mean sharing ancestry.

I am afraid it is a fact. The theory part is trying to explain those facts. In the same way gravitational theory tries to explain the facts surrounding gravity.

And you are right that sharing traits at the level they are shared, does not necessarility entail common ancestry. But it is vastly more likely and plausible that they do. For, the chance that so similar traits developed independently on different trees of life is the same as the chance that aliens look like humans and speak English. Like in Star Trek.

Off-topic:
Note how I'm not telling you it isn't because if my religion, I'm doing so by trying to reason with you. That's why I think bringing holy book and Abrahamic stuff was irrelevant. Sorry if I sounded rude asking if you didn't like them.

You can be rude with me any time you want. I did not notice any rudeness, but probably I would have not noticed it, even if you had been, indeed, rude. I am incapable to be offended or hurt in any significant way. Especially in a discussion forum.

So, fire at will :)

Ciao

- viole
 
Top