|
|
|
|
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/24/2009 8:31:18 PM |
Nope. That's making an assumption, and as my sister used to say, if you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
Actually no , it's a logical inference.
To be related means you share a mother or a father somewhere down the line, and even evolutionists say that we're not only descended from the same few couples, but that all mammals are descended from a few of the same species.
Yeah but that wasn't what we were talking about. The Bible claims we're all decendants of Adam and Eve. We almost certainly have one ancestor in common but not both.
Now , the rest of your post deals with interpretation of the Bible. Fine...go ahead , I'm certainly not holding that against anybody. What I was saying in the first place was that you can't have it both ways. You can't say "The Earth is 6000 years old" because the Bible told you so. If the Bible told you that we were all decended from apes and the Earth was actually about four and a half billion years old you still couldn't reference it.
So the question is why anybody tries to reference the Bible for anything at all given its self-contradictory nature coupled with the fact that it's entirely unclear (and I'm not buying the "lost in translation" argument either)
Interestingly though you said this :
The same can be said about the data in any experiment. You can look at the sky and say that the stars go round the Earth. If you take it at face value, then the sun goes around the Earth, and so do all the stars. If you are allowed to interpret the data differently, then you also have to allow for the possibility that you could be wrong about every single theory you come up with, even theories you heard from others, like Newton's and Einstein's.
Yay ! The bolded part is correct !
Kind of makes it all a rather pointless exercise in that case.
And this is the part where you forget what you just learned.
It's not pointless , it's part of the process. If it doesn't work in science then the idea is to come up with something that does. Call it trial and error if you like. With religion and the Bible , you have no way of knowing if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing or not. The purported author hasn't made any attempt to set us straight and without that , we can't confirm any of the endless interpretations (all of which with the possible exception of one are wrong)
That's why religion requires faith and science doesn't. Religion requires you to believe no matter what. Science is the opposite. If you want to believe no matter what the evidence says then that simply isn't science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/24/2009 9:07:02 PM |
It's not pointless , it's part of the process.
This is so beautiful, it about moved me to tears...
I am not being facetious, I am being very sincere.
This is why I participate in these forums...to have my ideas and preconceptions challenged, so that they may be further solidified, or allowed the space to change and grow...
Thank you, funcuz. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/24/2009 10:53:26 PM | RE Msg: 446 by Funcuz:
Actually no , it's a logical inference. I know a lot of people who make those sort of "logical inferences". I say "I'm thinking of getting a shaver", and they say "So when did your last one break?" I then have to explain to them that I still have my last one, but I could do with a new one, as it's on its way out. They ASSUME that if I say X is true, that this means that all other possibilities are false. Mutual exclusivity is not guaranteed in the English language.
To be related means you share a mother or a father somewhere down the line, and even evolutionists say that we're not only descended from the same few couples, but that all mammals are descended from a few of the same species. Yeah but that wasn't what we were talking about. The Bible claims we're all decendants of Adam and Eve. We almost certainly have one ancestor in common but not both.
What I was saying in the first place was that you can't have it both ways. Neither can you. That's the problem.
You can't say "The Earth is 6000 years old" because the Bible told you so. The Bible doesn't say that Earth is 6000 years old. I've read the whole OT, and it doesn't say that, not once.
If the Bible told you that we were all decended from apes and the Earth was actually about four and a half billion years old you still couldn't reference it. Why?
How do you know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Did you test the oldest rocks found yourself? You read it in a book. What makes you decide to accept the words of one book, over another? Because that's what you believe, that one book is reliable, and another is not. It's your belief that convinces you that your beliefs are right. It's a sefl-fulfilling prophecy.
I'll prove it. How do we know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
We do this by testing the age of various isotopes in Lead, and other minerals, and then make the assumption that all these isotopes originally formed in the Sun, in equal proportions of each element, and calculate the time required, based on the decay rates. With the decay rates themselves, we also assume that they are totally independent of temperature, pressure, and every other factor. We've found a great deal of consistency with these results.
However, none of this is actually proved for sure. We don't really know for sure if decay rates are independent of all other factors. Right now, that's what we've seen so far. However, science allows for the possibility that we will find that decay rates do change under conditions that we haven't observed, and assumed to be the same as what we have observed. So all we can say is that our best guess is that decay rates are independent.
Further, it's not like anyone has sampled the Sun, to know if isotopes form uniformly. If they haven't, then trying to calculate backwards, even with lots of samples, becomes a nightmare equation. I've tried to solve it myself, and it really gets so difficult to work out, that I seriously doubt if anyone can.
Even then, all we can say is that these isotopes formed in the Sun 4.5 billion years old. We don't really know when those minerals collected into what we now call the Earth. We can only say that they did, sometime.
So, all in all, the actual age of the Earth is really very questionable, even when we ignore the Bible completely and accept what we are told by science. So, why are you accepting the words of one book, and not another again?
I'm not advocating that you claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm not advocating that you should take anything in the Bible as gospel truth. But the evidence doesn't prove the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, only that it MIGHT be. You cannot have it both ways.
So the question is why anybody tries to reference the Bible for anything at all given its self-contradictory nature I've heard this said before. But almost every time, the person quotes 12 differences, that he calls a contradiction, and none of them actually are contradictions, and that's obvious if you know Hebrew well, and you read the original text carefully.
coupled with the fact that it's entirely unclear It's unclear to you, because you're not using the brain that you have. It's written in Hebrew. Would you say that someone reading an Arabic translation of the US Constitution, who concludes that it requires that all Americans have to buy a gun, is wrong? Well, he'd say it was just unclear as well.
(and I'm not buying the "lost in translation" argument either) I have to correct people about mistranslations all the time. I made a huge effort to learn to read the Bible in the original Hebrew. People make huge mistakes based on faulty translations all the time. Often, it's not even the direct fault of the translation, just that there are no direct equivalents in English to translate into. But more often, even the English shows that what people are calling a contradiction, is different enough in the English, that it could never be called that.
Yay ! The bolded part is correct ! I'm glad that we can agree on something.
Kind of makes it all a rather pointless exercise in that case. And this is the part where you forget what you just learned.
It's not pointless , it's part of the process. If it doesn't work in science then the idea is to come up with something that does. Call it trial and error if you like. Science isn't like that. IF you ONLY have ONE theory, then you say that theory is the one to work with, until the data proves it wrong. But since the theory could be true anyway, and there might be something else that is affecting the data, you cannot even say that the data has proved the theory wrong.
All you can really say in science. is that IF you have SEVERAL theories, and the data fits ONE theory more than the others, then that's the best theory to work with. But more data later on might show that something else was at play, and really the theory you thought was right, is wrong, and one of the other theories that you discounted, is the right one.
Even then, you cannot say anything in science for sure, because to do that, you'd need to know every possibility, and rule out all of them but one. AND you'd need to confirm it with ALL of the data in ALL space and ALL time. But since there are 2^n possibilities for n pieces of data, and we have billions of pieces of data, the number of possible theories is billions upon trillions. So you'd never rule out all the other possible theories. Also, we'll NEVER have all the data for ALL space and ALL time. So we'll NEVER confirm any theory completely. The whole task is pointless.
Scientific theories are our best guess at what's going on. Even if they don't quite fit the data, and they almost never do, it doesn't matter. As long as they are fairly reliable for achieving our objectives, that's all that matters. We cannot say anything more, because anything more is quite impossible. ALL scientific theories are just rules of thumb, useful tools for helping us live our lives, and nothing more.
With religion and the Bible , you have no way of knowing if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing or not. The purported author hasn't made any attempt to set us straight and without that , we can't confirm any of the endless interpretations (all of which with the possible exception of one are wrong) I doubt that. If it was really true, that you could not confirm or deny any possible interpretation, and if that was true, then no-one could ever suggest any argument that the interpretation that the Bible was made-up, because they could never confirm it, not even with arguments based on the Bible's own words. The mere existence of people arguing that the Bible is wrong, tells us that some interpretations of the Bible CAN be confirmed.
That's why religion requires faith and science doesn't. Religion requires you to believe no matter what. Science is the opposite. If you want to believe no matter what the evidence says then that simply isn't science. And that is exactly why science requires faith, and religion doesn't. The existence of people arguing about religion, TELLS us that you CAN confirm what religion requires you to believe. Science is the opposite, because it is claimed to be based only on the evidence, when everyone fully acknowledges that it's just not possible to definitely confirm any scientific theory based purely on the evidence. All you can say about science is that it's a series of rules of thumb, that will never be definitely proved true, and that are only treated as being true, in that they represent an easy way to remember some observations about life, that are only useful anyway, in how reliable they seem to be at the moment. Scientific theories are just useful rules of thumb. That's all you can say about it.
As long as you remember that scientific theories are useful rules of thumb, like that most people will indicate before turning, then they are incredibly useful. But the minute you think they are more than that, they cease to be useful. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 3:48:42 AM | Back to the OP, as I haven't weighed in on this subject yet (!), I'm pretty sure that YES you do have to have faith to believe in Science, at least at the interface of Science, Politics and the Media. The reason I say this is because for people like me, the Science I read is (generally, although not exclusively) revealed to me after some heavy editing, editorialising and spinning. That is: I read a media article first and foremost, more than likely a press release from some scientific institution. The press release will (except in the area of pharma, for legal reasons) big up the results. I make a decision whether to believe it or not based on a variety of factors. If I doubt it, I can go and read the paper to form my own conclusions, but it's often not possible to make a judgement because you then need to read previous work, citations, references and perhaps work through the reasoning yourself, which is not always possible. I would give a good example of this, but I don't want to start a debate on that specific area.
So yes, for most of us, any particular scientific conclusion cannot be trusted, seen as it is through the lens of the media/marketing professionals. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:46:49 AM | RE Msg: 405 by Funcuz:
Okay , you pretty much missed the whole point there. What point? You're saying the usual propaganda that you can find onn any media outlet. What I'm saying, is that if you want to know how science works, you have to be scientific about it. You have to look at the evidence. The evidence is actual history of science.
Newton's theory of gravitation was accepted for 300 years. But even if you look at the data that was known at the time of Newton, you can see that his theory is in error. Yet no-one said it was wrong. No-one started looking for an alternative theory. That's because as an approximation to reality, it was reasonably accurate, at least enough for the types of applications that it was used for.
Even when you conduct experiments in Physics, the standard method is to start out with a hypothesis, and then test your results, by performing an experiment, and marking your results on a graph. Then you just look at the data, and use linear correlation, by drawing a line through the middle of the results. You can make it a bit more accurate, by working out the statistical variation of your data from your linear model. Then you work out how much of your data is within a certain level of error that you consider reasonable, and that proportion represents your confidence interval. Confidence intervals above 90% are considered very accurate. But that's basically it. You're not saying that your hypothesis matches your data exactly. You're saying that your hypothesis is roughly right 90% of the time. Even if NONE of your data fits your theory, as long as 90% of your data is close, then that's OK. 10% of the time, your data will conflict with your theory completely. That doesn't matter, because 90% of your data roughly fits.
That's why science is mostly rules of thumb. The way we induct theories assumes that most of our data is wrong. It's mostly guesswork. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 11:22:14 AM | I suspect that this thread alone is sufficient to demonstrate that there is a substantial degree of faith in science. Add it to other scientific threads and you see a range of 'beliefs' that almost rival religious diversity. It was informative to ask Google 'what is science' Even scholarly articles point out here are many different philosophies of science.
The one which I hear most in scientific circles is 'adding to the body of knowledge'. Nothing about hypotheses or predictions.
http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Science.htm
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01
Here is a 'scientific site' with a specific comment on the lack of any relationship between religion and science. Again, given the divergent views on this relationship, even among those who espouse science, it seems clear than something other than fact-based 'knowledge' plays a role.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1 | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 11:32:13 AM | RE Msg: 408 by stargazer1000:
Okay , you pretty much missed the whole point there. What point? The point about brevity. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 2:08:47 PM | The OP presents faith in opposition to science..
Off>>>> I go to get an X-ray—I know a little bit about radiation frequencies.
But really I don’t know how the machine works—I need ‘faith’ in science—
I think there is a debate between two roads—and both paths are parallel leading to same answer.
Science has faith-- Newton, Darwin, Einstein –These people are all great thinkers, with tons of faith..
Anyone who has tried to read some of the Newton papers, written when he was tucked away at home, will understand how mind bending and esoteric / faith based-- these thinkers are.
Even today great thinkers use metaphors to, explain concepts of science. Einstein taught us to travel on a beam of light—truly a faithful fairy tale…
Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha – wrote in a different time. There was a need to be metaphoric in the descriptions because, the people of the time learned by stories not facts so they needed faith in the story…
Religion is also a science – a profound social science that has transcended, cultures and individuals from one state to another.
The fundamentals of the old and new biblical ideology are far more socially significant than Jung or Freud.
Tales of geographical upheavals – detailed cultural profiles // Ethnothology etc.. These collections of, texts, represents science of the time.
Science is a religion today—religion is a science of yesterday.
We could have faith in the-- Grand unified theory --- Or we could have faith in God…
------------- Either way it’s faith in the, knowledge & tools at hand.. ------------- | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 3:06:43 PM |
I got that point. It's never been my strong suit, not since I was a child. It's part of the way I think. I do try and work on it, but it's about as hard for me, as it would be for you to learn to jump a mile, rather than running all the distance in-between. At least I'm still working on it.
As they say, practice makes perfect.
The problem in insisting there is "faith" required for science is that too many on the creationist side of the floor insist that scientists can't "know" so then they are taking things, including baseline principles "on faith." And, of course, there is the insistence that evolution is "philosophy," not science that we can point to as an example.
For the sake of some applications, such as a particular experiment, baseline principles can be taken as a "given." That, however, is not to say that it is a question of faith. We can have "faith" that, if we step off the roof of a building, my fate is to become sidewalk pizza.
However, that doesn't mean that current theories involving gravity aren't up for review and even complete revision. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 4:44:32 PM | RE Msg: 412 by stargazer1000:
As they say, practice makes perfect. I'm still practising. I'm a LOT more clear than I used to be as a kid.
The next bit is quite long. But that's because it's the end result of a long train of thought, and is simple to understand, but quite long-winded to explain:
The problem in insisting there is "faith" required for science is that too many on the creationist side of the floor insist that scientists can't "know" so then they are taking things, including baseline principles "on faith." And, of course, there is the insistence that evolution is "philosophy," not science that we can point to as an example. That's understandable. You're on the defensive. You're reacting to the fear that the Religious Right might turn out to be oppressive. But in the process, you're taking the opposite extreme, and demanding that they accept the most extreme of your views.
Of course, you don't really believe that science doesn't require any faith or trust that current scientific theories are correct. You would naturally agree that we are taking it on trust that scientists are right. You'd equally agree that we're trusting that there won't be any more harmful results from trusting in current science, like the disasters of thalidomide, or DDT, or industrial-level pollution that led to global warming.
But you're worried that if you give an inch, that they'll take a mile. So you're demanding that they accept your views totally, even your most extreme views, and THEN you'll be willing to compromise and explain that you're not so extreme as you make out.
However, have you thought how you sound to someone else?
To someone in their position, you sound extreme, and as if you want to wipe them out. So they're on the defensive as well, saying the most extreme of their views, that they would only be too happy to compromise on, provided you would agree that they have a point.
They see that evolution has led to some very nasty consequences. Charles Davenport's forced sterilisation program, Werner Kellogg's testimony that the German High Command used evolution to justify World War II. They also saw what happened to society in the Roaring Twenties, and in the Swinging Sixties. Major alcoholism, drug abuse, free love leading to the breakdown of the family and extreme levels of negative body image in young women. There are lots of potential negative consequences to certain beliefs, if they are not moderated carefully, and evolution is no more free of that, that any other idea or concept. We can see that this was the source of anti-evolutionism, because the main attacks on evolution occurred in the Roaring Twenties, the Swinging Sixties, and the "Me generation" of the Eighties.
So in reality, the attacks on evolution were a defensive reaction to the most extreme side-effects of liberalism. Liberal ideas are very good, as long as they are moderated to not result in extremes. Problem is, liberals weren't moderating their views at all. Is it unexpected or unreasonable that if you project liberal views without any sense of proportion, and can expect will be taken to extremes that will definitely cause massive harm to society, that some might react against it? I don't think you could expect anything less.
But, when you put religious leaders and atheist leaders all in the same room, who are all committed to finding a way for all of them to get along, they almost always agree on 99% of their views, and the rest tends to be that which is only a problem in a tiny minority fo cases. Even then, the views of each tend to represent what anyone would feel is the right way for anyone raised in their views, and with that upbringing.
Really, both sides simply require the understanding that to get along, you need to have empathy for others, to understand that what they say is not exactly what they mean, and that a lot of what they say is rhetoric, said simply to make a point to be acknowledged, and not actually intended to be put fully into practice.
However, when such empathy is lacking, then both sides' rhetoric is not given a chance to be fully explained, and that leaves the way open for more ambitious and selfish types of people to actually endorse that rhetoric as reality.
I've done this many times, approached Catholics, and Protestants, and Muslims, and atheists, one-on-one, and tried to understand their POV. Over 90% of the time, they're a LOT more tolerant than the statements they say in public, and they are mostly just saying their more extreme and offensive of views, because society seems so against religion, that they feel marginalised, and truly believe that it's only a matter of time until religion is banned altogether, and they are sent off to somewhere like the Gulag for being a political dissident.
So try and see it from the other person's POV. I have. When I did that, I realised that the problem is that just as in the American Civil War, positions were taken, rather than everyone's views being aired and a compromise looked for. I live in hope that one day, the world can learn from its experiences, and not have a repeat of such a needless massacre of your own people.
For the sake of some applications, such as a particular experiment, baseline principles can be taken as a "given." That, however, is not to say that it is a question of faith. We can have "faith" that, if we step off the roof of a building, my fate is to become sidewalk pizza.
However, that doesn't mean that current theories involving gravity aren't up for review and even complete revision. I suggest that you read the WHOLE page, as it clears up a lot of problems, and is a very good explanation of what science is truly about. The following points are salient for the purposes of our discussion:
On the reliabilty of science:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b4
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b9
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c2
On the unreliability of science:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b4
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b8
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b11
On religion and science:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#d3
I seriously suggest that you read this, and re-read this again and again, until it sinks in, because this is exactly what I learned science is all about. It's exactly what made me think science was wonderful to learn and to live by, and what made me want to do science.
It was only when I got to university, that I discovered that the academic world wasn't like this, nearly as much as this seemed. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:19:27 PM | | Science and its advances have nothing to do with the fundamental being of most that live on this earth. T.V. ...then...etc....then medical advances...then...internet...what really changes the fundamental being of existence? Not Science. And who really wants to read long winded diatribes about why your point of view is right!! Science does support a good life and is absolutely about evolution. But only on a basic material and physical level. Many on the planet (including the USA and Canada) are one or two paycheques from homelessness. How does Science address this particular fact? Why is all this dialogue not just elitist? Why isn't some serious attention being paid to the fact that if the electrical grid goes, so goes all Scientific advances? Now here is where Science should be paying some real attention. What replaces the power that generates the Internet, medical operations, lights in your house, etc. etc. Battery powered generators? What really gives? Oh, wait, I am in between the next advancement. If that is the case, life on earth is too dependent on the powerful and never about true freedom. The only true freedom is not to be dependent on any of the whistle and bells. Otherwise you never free. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/26/2009 9:17:43 AM |
If there is an expression that requires more faith, than the expression, "absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing" (big bang theory), I'd love to hear it.
Well, since no cosmologist worth his/her salt actually says that, I'd call it moot. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 12:49:26 AM |
If there is an expression that requires more faith, than the expression, "absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing" (big bang theory), I'd love to hear it.
I always get a kick out of it when someone who believes that a magic person casted a spell that created the universe out of nothing accuses and mocks others for believing the universe came from nothing.
Especially since the big bang theory says nothing of the sort. lol | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:41:39 PM | I love it when some shallow minded person thinks someone that believes in god believes in a magic person being that god and then mocks the idea.
Especially since saying god means nothing of the sort. lol | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:49:03 PM |
I love it when some shallow minded person thinks someone that believes in god believes in a magic person being that god and then mocks the idea.
Especially since saying god means nothing of the sort. lol
As opposed to....? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 2:04:01 PM | As opposed to....?
god being the missing link in the unification of all the forces in the universe
the creator of all the forces in the multiverse
infinity
no person involved [being a person is a very shallow concept for god and was only presented to try and get the idea across to shallow people] | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 3:45:56 PM |
god being the missing link in the unification of all the forces in the universe
the creator of all the forces in the multiverse
Too much like a "God of the gaps" approach. Can't explain it, so it must be God. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:38:45 PM | Well, Stargazer, you've expressed your wonder at the world / universe in other threads.
Perhaps some people translate that wonder as respect and awe for the bosom from which we all arose, whatever it may turn out to be. And that whatever it is may be worthy of a special name.
Other than that, I guess my faith in scientists as tolerant beings has also been shattered by this thread. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:09:24 PM | RE Msg: 421 by stargazer1000:
Too much like a "God of the gaps" approach. Can't explain it, so it must be God. Surely that is the contention that a partial answer will always be accepted in place of a full answer, by everyone. I don't believe that anyone says "the police protect us, so I don't need to lock my car". | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 8:29:14 PM |
Surely that is the contention that a partial answer will always be accepted in place of a full answer, by everyone. I don't believe that anyone says "the police protect us, so I don't need to lock my car".
Some of us don't require a complete answer. We're satisfied with "best approximations." Especially when the only "complete answer" is "goddidit."
And what they DO say is, "If the police protect us as well as they are able AND I lock my car, it's a lot less likely to be broken into. If I put my valuables out of sight, it's even less likely..." Much better than "God must have a reason for allowing my car to be broken into. I mean, otherwise, why would my unlocked car with valuables sitting on the seats be singled out?!?!" | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/29/2009 8:54:15 PM |
Surely that is the contention that a partial answer will always be accepted in place of a full answer, by everyone. I don't believe that anyone says "the police protect us, so I don't need to lock my car".
Oh, we've had this discussion before. Science being a slow, steady progress towards answers, one step leading to another, to another. Your expectation of having it all at once. Rather than looking at all the ingredients and doing what it takes to lead up to having stew in your bowl, you're proposing bringing all the ingredients, plunking 'em raw into your bowl and saying "Now you! Be thou stew!"
The police reference I really do not get.
(Please keep your reply under 10,000 words, pls.) | |
|
|
| Page 17 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
