Evolution and Creationism

Champion

8936

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one.

To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

My Race Log

Champion

6786

Two seat rocket plane

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

Creationism/ID vis-a-vis evolution is simply argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Straight outta wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.^[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false, nor really to "prove" evolution is"true" but only to present observable facts and subject them to scientific scrutiny in the quest to make sense of the universe. Scientific discovery hinges on "the best answer we have right now, until a better one comes along" This is how we learn new things.

The reverse is not true. Creationists present belief as fact, and therefore must defend it in spite of other explanations.

My Race Log

Pro

6767

the Alabama part of Pennsylvania

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

dontracy - 2010-10-12 7:27 PM

gearboy - followed by a few versions of what people remembered about a specific guy that had a really bad time with the Romans, have at it...

whose followers then bridged the divide between faith and reason, between Jew and Greek.

Well, if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's how much we all hate the Romans! What did they ever do for us?

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

graceful_dave - 2010-10-12 5:50 PM

AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM

The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C.

The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true.

Evolution is Theory. the problem is that people who are not scientists do not understand the scientific meaning of a theory. They hear theory and think "Oh, it's just an idea, not something backed up with fact and evidence." Water boiling at 100 degrees c is an observable fact. In science, we distinguish between observable facts and theories which are generally excepted correlations of facts. As our life span is so short, we can not observe Evolution 1st had. As such we have to examine the facts that we can observe (like to fossil record, isolated populations, ect...) and the resulting correlation is the Theory of Evolution. Because creationists don't want to believe in evolution they use their ignorance of proper scientific process and use it for propaganda. There is always a chance that a theory could be disproven, but it needs to be disproven by observation of facts, not by irrational people with an agenda claiming the word "theory" means it's just a guess. Check out http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.htmlfor a better explanation. -- To answer the OP, I believe that Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. Their are plenty of people who beleive in evolution and also god, but I don't know that those people can be included in the Creationist group. Isn't there a different group that believes God was the spark for the big bang? I think there was a term for them that was different then Creationists. I.D. has no place in science class whatsoever.

We do observe evolution in "lower" lifeforms with much shorter lifespans on a regular basis, think the evolution of MRSA.

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

gearboy - 2010-10-12 8:28 PM

dontracy - 2010-10-12 7:27 PM

gearboy - followed by a few versions of what people remembered about a specific guy that had a really bad time with the Romans, have at it...

whose followers then bridged the divide between faith and reason, between Jew and Greek.

Well, if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's how much we all hate the Romans! What did they ever do for us?

They gave us the goddess Venus.

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

crowny2 - 2010-10-12 5:11 PM

Then you will never be satisfied because there is no such thing as 100% proof. NOTHING is 100%.

Wrong. Gravity accelerates objects on earth at 9.8m/s^2. The speed of light is c. Water boils at 100C at 101.33 kPa. There are lot of FACTS. Evolution is a theory.

Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-12 7:37 PM

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one.

To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure.

PV=nRT

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:37 PM

DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one.

To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure.

PV=nRT

Fresh or salt water?

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

trinnas - 2010-10-12 8:47 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:37 PM

DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one.

To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure.

PV=nRT

Fresh or salt water?

Smarta**

Pure water.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

dontracy - 2010-10-12 5:05 PM

(snip a bunch of other goodness)

This is a God who neither wound up a clock and then let it run willy nilly,
nor spends his time micromanaging the gaps of the evolutionary system.

Well said. I think you and I have the same point of view. It is one that is straddles the middle ground yet allows for both sides of the debate.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:50 PM

trinnas - 2010-10-12 8:47 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:37 PM

DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one.

To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure.

PV=nRT

Fresh or salt water?

Smarta**

Pure water.

Heh Heh Heh I couldn't resist.

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

To which creation story are you referring? There are so many.

I believe in the soundness of the argument put forth about how life has evolved on this planet as explained by Charles Darwin.

I believe the same evolutionary processes and dynamics would exist on other planets. Why wouldn't they?

I do not believe in the creation story put forth in Genesis or Hinduism or any other religion based upon a supernatural explanation about how the planets and life came to be.

I look exclusively to science to explain how life has evolved. Doesn't matter whether it's this planet or others.

Re: Intelligent Design. Let's be real. ID is merely masquerading for the Christian belief in the literalism of the creation myth found in Genesis. So, NO, I do not believe this creation myth should be taught as a) science or b) theory. I'm perfectly okay with it being taught as a creation myth in the appropriate setting - world religion.

Elite

4547

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

Renee - 2010-10-12 9:06 PM To which creation story are you referring? There are so many.

I believe in the soundness of the argument put forth about how life has evolved on this planet as explained by Charles Darwin.

I believe the same evolutionary processes and dynamics would exist on other planets. Why wouldn't they?

I do not believe in the creation story put forth in Genesis or Hinduism or any other religion based upon a supernatural explanation about how the planets and life came to be.

I look exclusively to science to explain how life has evolved. Doesn't matter whether it's this planet or others.

Re: Intelligent Design. Let's be real. ID is merely masquerading for the Christian belief in the literalism of the creation myth found in Genesis. So, NO, I do not believe this creation myth should be taught as a) science or b) theory. I'm perfectly okay with it being taught as a creation myth in the appropriate setting - world religion.

Let's be honest here:
1: Renee is a voice of reason.
2: If Renee uttered these words 600 years ago, she'd likely be burned at the stake.

btw, Copernicus' book wasn't published until after his death...why? He would certainly have been persecuted by the Church for heresy. So to say that the Church's issue with Galileo only rested on his theological stances is quite a stretch in my opinion. Copernicus' book landed on the Index of Prohibited Books after his death...was it for comments about theological teachings? I doubt it.

My Training Log My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-10-12 8:16 PM

Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false, nor really to "prove" evolution is"true" but only to present observable facts and subject them to scientific scrutiny in the quest to make sense of the universe. Scientific discovery hinges on "the best answer we have right now, until a better one comes along" This is how we learn new things.

The reverse is not true. Creationists present belief as fact, and therefore must defend it in spite of other explanations.

Nicely explained.

And, I concur.

Veteran

119

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM

The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C.

The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true.

^^^^^^^
Amen !!!! (hahhahahaha)

Extreme Veteran

612

Chicago-ish

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

The Biblical story of creation closely resembles origin of the world stories from many other cultures/religions/societies that existed at the time of its writing. They believed that the universe consisted of water and that their god, whoever that might be, proved his/her superiority by coming along and separating the water. They thought the earth was a giant disk that was held up in the void between the water above and below by pillars that extended down below the mountains and that those mountains held up the sky which was solid like a ceiling. The moon, sun, stars and clouds weren't out in space, they were flat and laid on the sky which rotated around the earth disk.

There is nothing scientific about that point of view but that was the existing theory of the world, including the Hebrews telling the creation story. The Biblical story goes on to share other things that Yahweh did that went above and beyond what the gods in the other stories accomplished, such as creating life, as proof that Yahweh was the true God. This concept shows itself repeatedly as deeds and titles that had previously been accorded to the god Ba'al were ascribed instead to Yahweh.

Personally, I believe in creation. Something can't come from nothing so no matter how far you go back you eventually need a "spark of life" that came from somewhere or something outside the universe that we exist within. I believe God provided that spark in some form.

I don't believe that we need to be teaching ID in schools but I do believe that we need to be honest about the holes in our understanding of evolution. When I was in school we were taught that evolution was fact and that we descended from apes with no explanation of how or why. Theories need to be taught as theories and questions without clear answers should be answered with a simple "We really don't know".

My Race Log

Pro

6767

the Alabama part of Pennsylvania

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

thndrcloud - 2010-10-13 2:47 AM The Biblical story of creation closely resembles origin of the world stories from many other cultures/religions/societies that existed at the time of its writing. They believed that the universe consisted of water and that their god, whoever that might be, proved his/her superiority by coming along and separating the water. They thought the earth was a giant disk that was held up in the void between the water above and below by pillars that extended down below the mountains and that those mountains held up the sky which was solid like a ceiling. The moon, sun, stars and clouds weren't out in space, they were flat and laid on the sky which rotated around the earth disk.

There is nothing scientific about that point of view but that was the existing theory of the world, including the Hebrews telling the creation story. The Biblical story goes on to share other things that Yahweh did that went above and beyond what the gods in the other stories accomplished, such as creating life, as proof that Yahweh was the true God. This concept shows itself repeatedly as deeds and titles that had previously been accorded to the god Ba'al were ascribed instead to Yahweh.

Personally, I believe in creation. Something can't come from nothing so no matter how far you go back you eventually need a "spark of life" that came from somewhere or something outside the universe that we exist within. I believe God provided that spark in some form.

I don't believe that we need to be teaching ID in schools but I do believe that we need to be honest about the holes in our understanding of evolution. When I was in school we were taught that evolution was fact and that we descended from apes with no explanation of how or why. Theories need to be taught as theories and questions without clear answers should be answered with a simple "We really don't know".

If this is indeed what you were taught, then you were taught poorly by someone with little understanding of evolution. And if that is the state of education in America, no wonder people are so willing to dismiss evolution, or call for ID as an equally viable alternative. The "holes" are more in specific species and not in the general principles of how species evolve or transmute over time. If anything, the discovery of genes and DNA has narrowed, not widened the gaps in knowledge since the theories were first proposed over 100 years ago.

As for the need for a "spark" - for now, that may be the "black box" in the starting point, although we are tantalizingly close to closing the gap. Even if there is a "prime mover" that starts the Big Bang, or originates life, once those things are set in motion, there is no need for intervention. That is actually what made mrs gearboy become an atheist from a devout catholic (even if she did marry a heathen agnostic jew-bu) - the idea that God does not need to be personally involved in our lives. To her, that means God is irrelevant, and if that is the case, there really is no god at all.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-10-12 8:16 PM

Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false, nor really to "prove" evolution is"true" but only to present observable facts and subject them to scientific scrutiny in the quest to make sense of the universe. Scientific discovery hinges on "the best answer we have right now, until a better one comes along" This is how we learn new things.

The reverse is not true. Creationists present belief as fact, and therefore must defend it in spite of other explanations.

There you go, lumping all "creationists" (and "evolutionists" for that matter) into one pile. And that is the major problem. In fact putting a label on them is one of the issues. I, for one, feel that I fall into both camps.

Nothing in the realm of creationism states that

1. Evolution cannot exist
2. Natural processes are still at play
3. There is life on other planets

Many creationists do not present their views as "facts". There is simply not hard data to back it up. However they simply state that those on the opposing point of view do not have all the answers either.

What caused the big bang? What caused the spark of life? Is this the only universe?

No one can answer those questions. Since there is no scientific answer for these questions (there are some *theories*) that a creationists theory is just as valid as any other. Is it the correct one? Maybe not. But it's a valid possibility.

I have no issue with both theories existing in harmony. It seems to me that those who cannot hold these two ideas in harmony (as even a remote possibility) are the closed minded ones.

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

As for your statement: Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false Some of the most vocal critics of ID are those who believe in evolution.

My Race Log

Elite

4235

Spring, TX

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 7:16 AM

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-10-12 8:16 PM

Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false, nor really to "prove" evolution is"true" but only to present observable facts and subject them to scientific scrutiny in the quest to make sense of the universe. Scientific discovery hinges on "the best answer we have right now, until a better one comes along" This is how we learn new things.

The reverse is not true. Creationists present belief as fact, and therefore must defend it in spite of other explanations.

There you go, lumping all "creationists" (and "evolutionists" for that matter) into one pile. And that is the major problem. In fact putting a label on them is one of the issues. I, for one, feel that I fall into both camps.

Nothing in the realm of creationism states that

1. Evolution cannot exist
2. Natural processes are still at play
3. There is life on other planets

Many creationists do not present their views as "facts". There is simply not hard data to back it up. However they simply state that those on the opposing point of view do not have all the answers either.

What caused the big bang? What caused the spark of life? Is this the only universe?

No one can answer those questions. Since there is no scientific answer for these questions (there are some *theories*) that a creationists theory is just as valid as any other. Is it the correct one? Maybe not. But it's a valid possibility.

I have no issue with both theories existing in harmony. It seems to me that those who cannot hold these two ideas in harmony (as even a remote possibility) are the closed minded ones.

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

As for your statement: Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false Some of the most vocal critics of ID are those who believe in evolution.

I'll start by saying that the two are certainly not mutually exclusive and that both are possibly true, even if not probably true.

That being said, there's a big difference between a scientific theory and religious belief.

- The Theory of Evolution is not complete, but it's based on observable facts and sound science. There is no debating those points. There is a little bit of wiggle room for the conclusion when applied to evolution over long period of time, but we know that evolution is a fact and how it works over short periods of time.

- Religious belief is not based on any sort of observable fact. The major Western religions are based on belief in stories written by other men and faith in a diety that can not be observed. I'm not knocking this belief or faith, but it cannot be compared to a scientifically backed Theory.

If I read a story about an invisible pink unicorn who is responsible for ensuring that we don't float away from the ground, and I choose to start believing this story without any proof whatsoever, I cant then start considering that belief is as sound of a basis as the Theory of Gravity is for why we stay firmly planted on the ground. Good for me for believing in the invisible pink unicorn, but it would be absurd to think that my personal fantasies are as legitimate as a scientific Theory.

My Race Log

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

To actually answer the OP without getting into a debate about creationism/evolution; (because too often these debates become guises for mud slinging and for one side or the other to question the rationality of the others belief systems. My experience is that both groups, those that hold to a solely creationist view point and radical athiests are incapable of entering into a deabte without castigating and belittling the beliefs of the other side.)

Background, I have an advanced degree, I am a christian. to answer the questions

1. Yes I believe they are mutually exclusive

2. No ID should not be taught in school as science. Perhaps in a comparative religion course, but not as science. It's not science nor is creationism science. Creationism in any form, whether Christian, or Tao or Inca are religious beliefs.

Additionally, as a Christian I believe I am the person that is responsible for my child's religious education. My faith is deeply personal, I don't want someone who may or may not believe the way I do, or hold the same biblical interpretations that I do, teaching my child faith based issues. Christian groupd can't even agree on the interpretation of Creationism from the Bible. There are those that believe in a literal 7 day creation and those that believe the Bible does not speak of a literal 7 days.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:16 AM

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-10-12 8:16 PM

Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false, nor really to "prove" evolution is"true" but only to present observable facts and subject them to scientific scrutiny in the quest to make sense of the universe. Scientific discovery hinges on "the best answer we have right now, until a better one comes along" This is how we learn new things.

The reverse is not true. Creationists present belief as fact, and therefore must defend it in spite of other explanations.

There you go, lumping all "creationists" (and "evolutionists" for that matter) into one pile. And that is the major problem. In fact putting a label on them is one of the issues. I, for one, feel that I fall into both camps.

Nothing in the realm of creationism states that

1. Evolution cannot exist
2. Natural processes are still at play
3. There is life on other planets

Many creationists do not present their views as "facts". There is simply not hard data to back it up. However they simply state that those on the opposing point of view do not have all the answers either.

What caused the big bang? What caused the spark of life? Is this the only universe?

No one can answer those questions. Since there is no scientific answer for these questions (there are some *theories*) that a creationists theory is just as valid as any other. Is it the correct one? Maybe not. But it's a valid possibility.

I have no issue with both theories existing in harmony. It seems to me that those who cannot hold these two ideas in harmony (as even a remote possibility) are the closed minded ones.

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

As for your statement: Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false Some of the most vocal critics of ID are those who believe in evolution.

These two statemnts are mutually exclusive, by definition a valid scientific theroy has to have hard facts to back it up. If it does not it is nothing more than a hypothesis and a weak one at that.

scientific theory =/= I have a hunch.

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 8:41 AM

That being said, there's a big difference between a scientific theory and religious belief.

This is the third time someone has said this. No one is claiming creationism is a scientific theory. It's a theory. It is based on writings and historical places/moments that coincide with the writings. And it's based on faith. No one is trying to say otherwise.

And as you said, they both are not mutually exclusive. That was the point of the OP's question. Not which is right or which one exists.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

gearboy - 2010-10-13 7:47 AM

thndrcloud - 2010-10-13 2:47 AM The Biblical story of creation closely resembles origin of the world stories from many other cultures/religions/societies that existed at the time of its writing. They believed that the universe consisted of water and that their god, whoever that might be, proved his/her superiority by coming along and separating the water. They thought the earth was a giant disk that was held up in the void between the water above and below by pillars that extended down below the mountains and that those mountains held up the sky which was solid like a ceiling. The moon, sun, stars and clouds weren't out in space, they were flat and laid on the sky which rotated around the earth disk.

There is nothing scientific about that point of view but that was the existing theory of the world, including the Hebrews telling the creation story. The Biblical story goes on to share other things that Yahweh did that went above and beyond what the gods in the other stories accomplished, such as creating life, as proof that Yahweh was the true God. This concept shows itself repeatedly as deeds and titles that had previously been accorded to the god Ba'al were ascribed instead to Yahweh.

Personally, I believe in creation. Something can't come from nothing so no matter how far you go back you eventually need a "spark of life" that came from somewhere or something outside the universe that we exist within. I believe God provided that spark in some form.

I don't believe that we need to be teaching ID in schools but I do believe that we need to be honest about the holes in our understanding of evolution. When I was in school we were taught that evolution was fact and that we descended from apes with no explanation of how or why. Theories need to be taught as theories and questions without clear answers should be answered with a simple "We really don't know".

If this is indeed what you were taught, then you were taught poorly by someone with little understanding of evolution. And if that is the state of education in America, no wonder people are so willing to dismiss evolution, or call for ID as an equally viable alternative. The "holes" are more in specific species and not in the general principles of how species evolve or transmute over time. If anything, the discovery of genes and DNA has narrowed, not widened the gaps in knowledge since the theories were first proposed over 100 years ago.

As for the need for a "spark" - for now, that may be the "black box" in the starting point, although we are tantalizingly close to closing the gap. Even if there is a "prime mover" that starts the Big Bang, or originates life, once those things are set in motion, there is no need for intervention. That is actually what made mrs gearboy become an atheist from a devout catholic (even if she did marry a heathen agnostic jew-bu) - the idea that God does not need to be personally involved in our lives. To her, that means God is irrelevant, and if that is the case, there really is no god at all.

Would you stop it!!! Agreeing with you and Renee is giving me a migraine. **and possibly indegestion**

That was very well put by the way.

Elite

4235

Spring, TX

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 7:53 AM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 8:41 AM

That being said, there's a big difference between a scientific theory and religious belief.

This is the third time someone has said this. No one is claiming creationism is a scientific theory. It's a theory. It is based on writings and historical places/moments that coincide with the writings. And it's based on faith. No one is trying to say otherwise.

And as you said, they both are not mutually exclusive. That was the point of the OP's question. Not which is right or which one exists.

Creationism is NOT a theory. Let's be very clear; a theory must be backed by observable and measurable facts!

Writings that are 1,700 or more years old are not observable or measurable facts. They are the writings of unknown men telling a story that some choose to believe and other don't. Creationism is a story that some people hold to be true, which is fine, but it's still not supported by any observable facts.

My Race Log

Champion

5376

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

trinnas - 2010-10-12 8:54 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:50 PM

trinnas - 2010-10-12 8:47 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:37 PM

DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one.

To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure.

PV=nRT

Fresh or salt water?

Smarta**

Pure water.

Heh Heh Heh I couldn't resist.

Oooh, late to the party but can we use a vacuum at the triple point of said water?

My Race Log

Evolution and Creationism (Page 3)

REGISTER TODAY