Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[Gilrandir]

With rather few exceptions, whole nations are not v'pokhode gatoviye.

Sorry couldn't help this one: v pokhod gotovyie.
But I'm sure even in ancient times it was not the WHOLE nations that were on the move. There were some individuals (or perhaps even groups) that chose to stay (see Avari "The Silmarillion") or turned back at an early stage.

[Montmorency]

But I'm sure even in ancient times it was not the WHOLE nations that were on the move. There were some individuals (or perhaps even groups) that chose to stay (see Avari "The Silmarillion") or turned back at an early stage.

Look, you got me - there's a whole can of worms on cultural identity and group membership that I wanted to avoid opening up, so I used a 'quick and easy' shorthand.

A more precise and sociologically-neutral way to put it would be:

Whole communities, or large parts of them, no longer travel cohesively (i.e. constituting a sociopolitical unit) from an origination point to settle, permanently or otherwise, at some other point. A community here can be supralocal, e.g. in the sense of the Nordic settlers of Iceland.

Actually, from that point of view Israel/Soviet Jewry is an interesting case, since with Israel you had many local communities loosely-connected by shared traditions and a nascent Zionism converging on one point in order to undertake a project of forming a new "nation". Of course, if you're a hard-core Zionist that analysis would be tendentious, but really a broader Jewish identity existed only in a relatively-limited number of intellectuals and political activists, even as recently as a century ago. Similar with the Vietnamese case.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If it was just a case of two independent developments in Asia-Africa-Europe and the Americas, I agree it could be a coincidence. But there were nine of these independent developments across the world. According to this article (which admits this presents something of a conundrum) these are the "Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, Andes/Amazonia, eastern United States, Sahel, tropical West Africa, Ethiopia and New Guinea".

My view of what happened is that a people with extensive knowledge of agriculture, seafaring, urban development etc first settled in the Middle East and then settled the world over a period of about 1,000 years. Regarding the dates I gave earlier - I wouldn't read too much into a variation of 1,000 years - the figures are extremely speculative since radiocarbon dating is not far short of useless for absolute dating - its use lies in relative dating which is used alongside much less precise theories to come up with dates. Their significance IMO is in showing a very sudden appearance of civilization across the whole world - something that doesn't fit with evolutionary models for human development.

Have you ever come across any of David Rohl's books or documentaries? He is a secular archaeologist and is (was?) Britain's top expert on the ancient Middle East - he does an excellent job at pointing out how flimsy current scientific interpretations of these ancient times are, as well as highlighting systematic problems in the scientific community, and in particular its failure to harmonize findings from different disciplines as well as its refusal to appreciate the value of literary sources for cultural reasons (eg, the perceived faith v science conflict which means even attempting to reconcile archaeological findings with literary accounts is a career-wrecker).

If you want a secular and serious critique of much of modern science and history, then he's your man.

A. You can't claim that radiocarbon dating is both useless and then claim that the dates of agriculture derived from radiocarbon dating is definitive.

B. 1,000 years is a long time, again stop saying that all these areas are somehow connected because they all saw agriculture develop along a very long time. Assume that most regions had established agriculture by 6500BC, with agriculture starting in 8000BC. If we take agriculture to be the birth of "modern human history" then this major development takes up ~1,500 years/(8,000 BC to 2,000 AD) = ~15% of all of "modern human history".

C. I am worried that you have a theory in your head and you are just looking for any sort of justification to shed doubt on what is otherwise established science.

[Husar]

Anything before that is prehistory and is basically nothing but pure guesswork. All we have to understand it is relative (not absolute) dating systems from which we can produce theories.

Well, if you find dinosaurs twenty meters under the surface and the first traces of humans ten meters under the surface with very different layers in between, you're seriously going to say they lived around the same time? You also claim that civilization started around the same time, all those civilizations created a ton of records about tigers, lions, snakes and so on but noone every painted or wrote about the dinosaur in the room? Carbon-dating is not the only form there is*, that's one reason I brought up skeletons in the ground.
Also do you think the dinosaurs died before or after the great flood and Noah's ark?
How long did they live if we are going to assume that based on the dimensions given in the bible, his ark was a fair bit too small to take on a pair of all kinds of dinosaurs?
The whole thing becomes really shakey if you take this timeline for granted and claim that god didn't just place some skeletons in the earth's crust (which he also made colourful and diverse for unknown reasons).
I think the idea that if there is a god, that he created the physical laws in our universe would be much easier to defend than the idea that he created the entire universe 7000 years ago. Just think of the 7 days the bible mentions as periods instead of days (one could even ask whether that's properly translated from early hebrew etc.) and it might even roughly vibe with the timeline evolutionists give.

As for a lot happening in a thousand years, I don't believe the evolutionary model allows for contact between Mesopotamia, China, Papua New Guinea, sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and all the other places that independently developed agriculture within that 1,000 year timeframe. If you can't explain it by human contact and the spread of ideas/technology, then how do you explain it?

The same basic genetic makeup/similar development. Take Monmorency's favourite theory that the brain basically just takes input and creates (ultimately predictable) output. Now if you give a thousand people very similar inputs it's possible that two or more of them have the same idea even without requiring communication.

Take my dad and myself, we were in a car and someone said something on the radio. My dad made a joke and I wanted to make pretty much the same joke at the same time, same input, similar brains, same/very similar output. This is just one example, we've had quite a few such moments where we had pretty much the same idea upon seeing or hearing something. It's a vague example but it does show that two people can have the same thought without one of them communicating it to the other first, simply based on their thought patterns and the input they receive. Think of it like these stories where someone travels from the US to Asia and meets their "soul mate", i.e. the person who is so much like them in character and thought etc.

So take very similar stages of the developed human brain, take the end of the ice age and the effects this has on nature and everything around us as input and the output you get is that people get the idea to plant seeds in order to grow food. You have a sample of many thousands of people and a timespan of around a thousand years, it's not all that unlikely that they get the same ideas. And others have already said that you can't just rule out travelling either. It could just as well be a mix of independent ideas and travelling.

I'm only going to fight one battle at a time, but I'm guessing your question has something to do with the fact that conditions in the very early universe were totally different from what they are now (as in, basic fundamental laws etc).

But what use is it to fight this battle if you've already lost the war on all other fronts?

No, I am thinking about the timescale here. 6 days - 6000 years old earth. How is Andromeda visible on our night sky?

Well, an all powerful god could have just placed the already moving light into the middle of space, but one could then ask why he would do that? Especially if the all powerful god already knows the future and would thus know that doing this will confuse peoples' belief in him, which he so desires.






*there's also Carbon one-night-stands

[Sigurd]

Well, an all powerful god could have just placed the already moving light into the middle of space, but one could then ask why he would do that? Especially if the all powerful god already knows the future and would thus know that doing this will confuse peoples' belief in him, which he so desires.

Ok... into the middle. That still leaves at least 1 million light years to travel the whole distance to earth. Which, if the Earth is around 6000 years old, still leaves about 994 000 years before Andromeda will be visible on our night sky. I can't wait. Oh, it will be such a trip to see another whole galaxy filled with potential planets and perhaps plan B in there somewhere.

[Husar]

Ok... into the middle. That still leaves at least 1 million light years to travel the whole distance to earth. Which, if the Earth is around 6000 years old, still leaves about 994 000 years before Andromeda will be visible on our night sky. I can't wait. Oh, it will be such a trip to see another whole galaxy filled with potential planets and perhaps plan B in there somewhere.

That was meant more like "I am in the middle of Nowhere" which also does not usually mean that you have measured your location and are actually exactly in the middle of a place called nowhere. What I literally meant was that he could have placed all the light along the entire way from Andromeda to Earth. I do not believe that he did this, it's just a possible explanation if you believe there is a god who is all powerful and has no limits in our universe.

Or maybe our measurement of the distance to Andromeda is wrong.

[Gilrandir]

Take my dad and myself, we were in a car and someone said something on the radio. My dad made a joke and I wanted to make pretty much the same joke at the same time, same input, similar brains, same/very similar output.

All (human) brains are similar. In your case it would be more accurate to speak of similar minds which, however, has doubtful relation to inheritance. Minds are more nurture than nature. I have similar experiences with my daughter and my best friend, yet practically no with my wife. Evidently the same input and similar/different minds can as well produce both different and similar output. Has something to do with mind tuning.

[Husar]

All (human) brains are similar. In your case it would be more accurate to speak of similar minds which, however, has doubtful relation to inheritance. Minds are more nurture than nature. I have similar experiences with my daughter and my best friend, yet practically no with my wife. Evidently the same input and similar/different minds can as well produce both different and similar output. Has something to do with mind tuning.

???

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/english/mind

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought

In other words, your brain. Your mind is just a function of your brain.

[Beskar]

I was thinking just prior to the First Crusade, I'd take the formula for Portland Cement and the plans for a manuballista with me.

Admittedly, I would have thought Justin if you want to go with the Eastern, maybe being fundamental to Constantine might be an excellent point too. Wasn't too fond of Alexios. Though, you could always go back to Caesar, you could meet Jesus the man himself, and give us a critique of how the person differed from the book, if he was better or worse than you thought, etc.

I definitely agree with cement, but I would definitely taken back eco-industrial technology, skipping the dirty industrial revolution.

[Beskar]

I think this debate illustrates something very nicely:

Science supports my view = Science is the measure of truth
Science does not support my view = Science is actually a worthless standard in discussion of such issues

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-from-facts/

Summed up by my signature:
"Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

[Gilrandir]

???

In other words, your brain. Your mind is just a function of your brain.

I meant in structure and composition it is the same cells constituting an ugly slimy mass. Like all livers, hearts and kidneys are similar (except pathological, of course). Thanks to simialrity of brain all people are able to feel and to think. Since what they feel and what they think are different it is their mind that accounts for this difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

A mind is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory

[Husar]

I meant in structure and composition it is the same cells constituting an ugly slimy mass. Like all livers, hearts and kidneys are similar (except pathological, of course). Thanks to simialrity of brain all people are able to feel and to think. Since what they feel and what they think are different it is their mind that accounts for this difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

I was referring to the theory that consciousness and all these things are just a side-effect of the TTBS, I donb't have the time to investigate and think about how that relates to an age-old definition of mind, which is probably wrong and outdated. I also don't think the nerves in the spinal cord or in the eyes came up with the idea for agriculture. But if you insist you can replace brain with mind and it won't invalidate my point that similar systems (see, even more generic now) with similar input are likely to yield similar output if the number of systems and therefore processes is big enough.

[Montmorency]

Mixing with and spreading evil notions like a common street expounder?

You hussy...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I couldn't find the right archaic words for this comment, so judge it for what it could have been.

[Ironside]

Right, and I am to believe that a reduction in this climate fluctuation suddenly presented the exact same demographic pressures in completely different ecosystems with different wildlife, crops, climates and landscapes all across the world at near enough the exact same time? Never mind the fact that most of the staple crops can be grown in quite different climates and would surely grow in much of the world even with the sort of fluctuations your graph presented.

Global temperatures will have a global influence.

Agriculture is only worth it if there's high enough population density, since hunter gatherers gets the food they need faster.

Agriculture makes you settled.

The transition between hunter gatherer and full agriculture seems to be a few thousands years.

Before writing, any information that's gotten irrelevant disappears after a few generations.

Smaller temperature changes has been proven to destroy cities and civilizations.

Your crops might still grow in the new climate, you only need to move several hundred kilometres.

Combine it all you'll need a relatively stable period for a few millennia to make the transition. If no such periods occurred earlier, then it's no wonder the transition never happened.

[Montmorency]

Before writing, any information that's gotten irrelevant disappears after a few generations.

And this is really important when combined with population density.

It's actually possible that isolated groups of Ice Age humans, or even earlier hominids, may have tried their hand at agriculture, or at least horticulture, with some fleeting success.

If they did, they always failed to spread it. Why? Because the climate made it easy to fail, with respect to both carrying capacity for the population and the actual cultivation itself.

If there's one group of a few dozen that can practice at least primitive gardening, and no other group can do it for a few hundred miles, then what happens if there's a small disaster and the group gets scattered or wiped out? A lean winter because they over-relied on the new techniques? Or maybe the one elder who really understood how to make it work died in an accident or to a predator, or to disease, and took the skill with him or her? And even if none of that happens, it's still highly unlikely that any other nearby group could pick it up through contact, because low density means low contact, less opportunities to spread, higher difficulty of transmitting the knowledge and techniques, and steeper 'gradient of credibility' in the first place.

So it's not even about the "invention" of agriculture, or whatever. The end of the glacial period simply made the possibility of agriculture as productive and sustainable.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I can't keep up with all the replies, so apologies to those who don't get a direct response.

Before writing, any information that's gotten irrelevant disappears after a few generations.

The creationist answer to that would be to consider the lifespans of early man - usually from several hundred up to 960 years - no doubt that would help with retaining the integrity of oral information.

A. You can't claim that radiocarbon dating is both useless and then claim that the dates of agriculture derived from radiocarbon dating is definitive.

I said it is useless for absolute dating - those dates I gave you were gotten mainly through relative dating, and radiocarbon dating can be useful for that beyond 3,500 years.

C. I am worried that you have a theory in your head and you are just looking for any sort of justification to shed doubt on what is otherwise established science.

Your suspicions are right. I do have a theory in my head but I will need to seriously formulate it and keep researching. I like to make positive arguments rather than just attacking other ideas.

Anyway, I think its fair to say that creationists have a very different worldview from the secular one, and they each rest on very such different assumptions that hinge upon each other and mesh together in such a way that one part doesn't make sense if you take it out of the whole. Like I said earlier I would like to build up a sort of creationist framework for the development of human history, and that would no doubt make for some interesting discussions.

In the meantime, the discussion is starting to go round in circles a bit, so maybe its best just to leave it at that.

[Sigurd]

Or maybe our measurement of the distance to Andromeda is wrong.

I think not.

That was meant more like "I am in the middle of Nowhere" which also does not usually mean that you have measured your location and are actually exactly in the middle of a place called nowhere. What I literally meant was that he could have placed all the light along the entire way from Andromeda to Earth. I do not believe that he did this, it's just a possible explanation if you believe there is a god who is all powerful and has no limits in our universe.

See... you are on a slippery slope if you allow magic to enter the discussion. It would be case in point for any of the arguments in here. The sedimentary layers, the radio carbon dating, the agriculture - all answers appealing to magic.
God made the earth in 6 days - but by magic he sped up the processes needed to make it. In 6 days he magically took the earth through a 4 billion year process. All carbon dating is correct - its just that by magic - God made it all happen in 6 days. God created man as a hunter/gatherer and during untold years Adam & Eve could reap the fruits of the garden(s) - they were cast out and by magic - god made the earth hard to till. The earth would no longer yield her abundance and Adam and his posterity had to till the earth and make things grow to sustain the human family. Adam lived a thousand years after being expelled in which his posterity grew and spread out to all the corners of the earth (except the earth isn't flat and square).

During the creation of the universe - he magically placed light photons along the routes of all stars toward earth - so astronomers in the 20th/21st centuries could be deceived. Your God the great deceiver analogy is not painting a good picture of deity.

[Husar]

I think not.

Well, if the carbon dating is wrong, what else is?

See... you are on a slippery slope if you allow magic to enter the discussion. It would be case in point for any of the arguments in here. The sedimentary layers, the radio carbon dating, the agriculture - all answers appealing to magic.
God made the earth in 6 days - but by magic he sped up the processes needed to make it. In 6 days he magically took the earth through a 4 billion year process. All carbon dating is correct - its just that by magic - God made it all happen in 6 days. God created man as a hunter/gatherer and during untold years Adam & Eve could reap the fruits of the garden(s) - they were cast out and by magic - god made the earth hard to till. The earth would no longer yield her abundance and Adam and his posterity had to till the earth and make things grow to sustain the human family. Adam lived a thousand years after being expelled in which his posterity grew and spread out to all the corners of the earth (except the earth isn't flat and square).

He also split the red sea to allow the israelites to escape the egyptians and so on. And yes, Rhyfelwyr is apparently arguing that he did indeed create the entire universe in the timespan of 6 modern days 7000 years ago. The all powerful god the bible describes could do all the things you mention, he even flooded the entire earth and killed everyone but the guy in a huge boat to whom he sent pairs of all animals somehow magically. I mean all powerful is taken very literally, he also let fire rain onto a city or two in order to destroy it and kill everyone inside. Not exactly someone you'd want to mess with because he sets the standard for morality and does these things to people who do not listen while he rewards those who love him and his standards.

During the creation of the universe - he magically placed light photons along the routes of all stars toward earth - so astronomers in the 20th/21st centuries could be deceived. Your God the great deceiver analogy is not painting a good picture of deity.

Neither was my assumption that he placed dinosaur skeletons in the varying layers of earth's crust, because where would you place the dinosaurs if earth is just 7000 years old? If god created humans back then and they were somehow civilized right away, why are there no human records of dinosaurs when there are records of plenty of other animals from early civilization? And why would he place skeletons at a depth below the surface where they couldn't end up naturally in 7000 years? Indeeed my point was that if you believe in the loving god who wants to be your friend and wants you to find him, it makes no sense to think that he would do that. So either the book is not very literal on the early days, our loving god did some weird things or my logic is failing me. Or you claim that the devil also has powers and did all these things to lead us astray because he is the great deceiver. But then you could still ask why god lets the devil do such things. At that point it tends to become pointless to even think about it...

[Sigurd]

Well, if the carbon dating is wrong, what else is?

*cough*

He also split the reed sea to allow the israelites to escape the egyptians and so on. And yes, Rhyfelwyr is apparently arguing that he did indeed create the entire universe in the timespan of 6 modern days 7000 years ago. The all powerful god the bible describes could do all the things you mention, he even flooded the entire earth and killed everyone but the guy in a huge boat to whom he sent pairs of all animals somehow magically. I mean all powerful is taken very literally, he also let fire rain onto a city or two in order to destroy it and kill everyone inside. Not exactly someone you'd want to mess with because he sets the standard for morality and does these things to people who do not listen while he rewards those who love him and his standards.

All these OT miracles are in the realm of natural laws and could be performed by a scientific advanced race (not suggesting anything here).

So either the book is not very literal on the early days, our loving god did some weird things or my logic is failing me.

Exactly. Creationism in its current form doesn't make sense. And there are Creationists and creationists. One adhere to the literal 6 24h periods the other to 6 periods of unknown years.

During my debate with Rhy in the Trinitarianism thread, I realized that my Bible skills were lacking, so I am currently on a break to rearm these skills and I have started reading the thing again. One thing that caught my eye, is the precise time something takes - 40 days, 40 years - again and again the same numbers. Why not 34 or 63? Investigating further - its not exact times. They are code for a type of preparation. 40 should be substituted with sufficient or probationary. It is the time it took to get to the finish line however long that actually was.

6 is the unfinished number the "just not perfect" number, while 7 is the sign of perfection. How that plays into the creation story - is still uncovered territory.

edit: BTW - my current theory of why dinosaurs? The earth needed fertilization.

[Gilrandir]

I was referring to the theory that consciousness and all these things are just a side-effect of the TTBS, I donb't have the time to investigate and think about how that relates to an age-old definition of mind, which is probably wrong and outdated. I also don't think the nerves in the spinal cord or in the eyes came up with the idea for agriculture. But if you insist you can replace brain with mind and it won't invalidate my point that similar systems (see, even more generic now) with similar input are likely to yield similar output if the number of systems and therefore processes is big enough.

In fact, the mind/brain semantics is irrelevant for this debate of ours. What I tried to show with my examples is that similar input and similar "things in the head" don't always produce similar output and vice versa - similar input and different TITH don't always mean different output. Are you still following me?

In the meantime, the discussion is starting to go round in circles a bit, so maybe its best just to leave it at that.

I would say that anti-creationists were debating with ant-creationists. Can't call it a genuine debate.

One thing that caught my eye, is the precise time something takes - 40 days, 40 years - again and again the same numbers. Why not 34 or 63?

Perhaps they counted by tens.

[Husar]

In fact, the mind/brain semantics is irrelevant for this debate of ours. What I tried to show with my examples is that similar input and similar "things in the head" don't always produce similar output and vice versa - similar input and different TITH don't always mean different output. Are you still following me?

No, who said anything about always?
I gave a vague reasoning for why among two sets of thousands of people each, over a timespan of a thousand years, who are subjected to similar problems and similar climate changes, there may be one or more in each set of people who come up with similar ideas.
Is that wrong now or not? Does every human invention have to spread from one single human to all others or is it possible that a german and an englishman invented the jet engine independently from one another?

[Beskar]

All these OT miracles are in the realm of natural laws and could be performed by a scientific advanced race (not suggesting anything here).

[Papewaio]

Apparently our eyes are formed in the way they are to enhance green red light at the expense of blue and night vision.

http://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-t...uch.touch.html

So the nerves help channel the light to the red and green sensitive cones.

[Sigurd]

Perhaps they counted by tens.

Well.. sort of. It's a mix between our system and Roman like numerals.
They use letters from their alphabet and they have letters for 1 - 9, 10 - 90, 100 - 400 where 400 is the largest number with a single letter. 500 would be 400 + 100

[Gilrandir]

No, who said anything about always?
I gave a vague reasoning for why among two sets of thousands of people each, over a timespan of a thousand years, who are subjected to similar problems and similar climate changes, there may be one or more in each set of people who come up with similar ideas.
Is that wrong now or not? Does every human invention have to spread from one single human to all others or is it possible that a german and an englishman invented the jet engine independently from one another?

It is possible all right. Only I wouldn't turn the possibility into a pattern or rule. Too many exceptions and/or irregularities.

Well.. sort of. It's a mix between our system and Roman like numerals.
They use letters from their alphabet and they have letters for 1 - 9, 10 - 90, 100 - 400 where 400 is the largest number with a single letter. 500 would be 400 + 100

It seems to me (though I can't wager on it) that the older numerical systems were duodecimal (12-based). Having this in view, it would be more natural to have the traces of it in older books. Yet it may apply to European civilizations only (like the Celtic one).

[total relism]

This is just a quick example of why if someone say they are a creationist 2015, you should just slowly back away... Avoid eye contact... And then just run. Not for your life, of course. They are not muslims. I just mean like, generally run because of sanity reasons.



If you don't bother watching the video, and HELL YES I want to avoid us having to watch idiotic videos to debate.

The main point is:

IF we are intelligently designed, how come the design is so god awful stupid? The video shows how we have inherited physiological traits that today do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD, but were well functioning when we were back in the ocean...

And then we just kind of rolled on with it, as it worked.

Not because it's intelligently designed, but because it works.



So, any christian fanboy want to step up and have a fight about creation?







* as a sidenote to all non-christians... I can well believe, among another things, that the universe WAS intelligently created. Lots of actual scientific theories would support it, the "We are Sims" one as an example (even if I personally dont put much faith in it, as there surely would be easier ways to calculate than making organisms... ((unless I just believe I am an organism!!??)).

I just find the idea that the CHRISTIAN intelligent design would be "correct" absolutely shocking, as that would go against pretty much everything we have learnt since having sharp minds away from an iron age desert tribe believing society thingy...*

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge


haven't been on a awhile just saw this thread. I will be doing a thread on creation vs evolution next, I have been very busy and it will be awhile. As far as your post I will say, their is a reason evolutionist dont debate, and only those willing and wanting believe them and dont challenge what they say and come away with a post and belief similar to op. For anyone willing to question and challenge what they believe, please read this book

The greatest hoax on earth Refuting dawkins on evolution
http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

It is a response to his whole book but this argument is in his book and is responded in detail and really shows why it is these "bad design" arguments [ and others used to teach evolution] dont work in debate and why just like dawkins, he refused to debate sarfati in recorded public debate on his book. When I do post i will post dozens of debates when evolutionist do debate, than you will see more reasons why they only work on those willing and wanting to believe.

[Montmorency]

Who starts off their post by pasting their signature?

[Greyblades]

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

Oh good, this guy again.

[Sarmatian]

total relism is back!!! Yay!!!

No one gets the backroom going like he does! Welcome back!