Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 417 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#44014 - 06/25/12 02:54 AM Proof that there is no God and no Creation
Eddy Pengelly Offline
Member

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Southern Australia
"Proof that there is no God and there was no Creation"

What would be needed to make that statement true ?

From a Bible perspective:
"God" first appears in Genesis 1:1.
It is this God to which I refer.

It is said that this God 'created' the earth and all the animals in seven days, as documented in Genesis Chapter One - commonly called the 'Creation Theory'.

Thus from a religious circular thinking perspective, the first chapter of the first book of the Bible confirms that 'God created the earth in 7 days'.

Atheists on the other hand reject this.

So let us make an equal playing field upon which to make a final conclusion.

Let us apply the scientific method of evaluation to this, and call the 'Creation Theory' a scientific theory.

In doing so, Religious people now HAVE to produce the evidence to prove their claim.

IF no evidence is tended, it will be relegated back to being just a hypothesis - a guess of wishful thinking (which they call Faith).

IF evidence is presented that the 'God' in Genesis 1:1 refers to something real and not divine, and the 'creation' account can be shown to be about something else real and not divinely produced, then this would prove 'The Creation Theory' FALSE.

Possible Result and conclusion:
1.) Evidence produced - There is a God and the Creation did occur.
or
2.) Contrary evidence produced - There is (was) no GOD, and there was no CREATION of the earth in 7 days (as perceived by religious people from their interpretation of the Bible).

What do think of this challenge to produce actual evidence ?
_________________________
Visit World Breaking Discoveries on-line

Top
.
#44017 - 06/25/12 02:41 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
"Proof that there is no God and there was no Creation"

What would be needed to make that statement true ?


my guess would be a bunch of know it all , know nothing idiot's?

but it would only be true in the sense that the bunch of
know it all , know nothing idiots thought it was true.

so it would only be true to the idiot's.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44018 - 06/25/12 02:48 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
have you ever heard of the fly that is born , grows up , has children and then dies 30 minutes after it began life.

http://victoryv.hubpages.com/hub/top-10-Short-life-Small-lifespan-animalsinsectsplants

Quote:
These are aquatic insects.The lifespan of an adult mayfly can vary from just 30 minutes to one day depending on the species.The primary function of the adult mayfly is reproduction.About 2500 species of mayfly are known worldwide.


we cant leave out time.

to that fly everything he did in his entire life took 30 of our minutes.

I would imagine that compared to God our lifespan is like that fly's lifespan is to us.

so 1 day for God could be thousands or millions of our years.

there are a lot of people who dont think that creation is true.

I will start thinking that rocks gave birth to plants and animal's and humans just as soon as I see a rock give birth to any biological lifeform.

I think it is more intelligent to believe in creation than to not believe in creation.

oh wait it seems that everyone is now creating life in labratories all over the world , its simple.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&...280&bih=616

you just have to have a little created life to begin with.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44020 - 06/25/12 04:36 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
"Proof that there is no God and there was no Creation"

What would be needed to make that statement true ?

Nothing. Truth is relative when it comes to belief and statements made from belief. As long as one has no experience of God or God as the creator, God does not exist and there was no creation.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

From a Bible perspective:
"God" first appears in Genesis 1:1.
It is this God to which I refer.

This God to which you refer, would have to be something in order to refer to it. Otherwise you are referring to an imagined straw man of which you have no experience, and would wish to have someone define for you an example to which you could measure your own imagined God.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

It is said that this God 'created' the earth and all the animals in seven days, as documented in Genesis Chapter One - commonly called the 'Creation Theory'.

If it is documented it is not theory but documentation of events. You might be assuming it is theory based on an analysis or argument against your own ideas of understanding of the universe and its manifestation, and continuing existence.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

Thus from a religious circular thinking perspective, the first chapter of the first book of the Bible confirms that 'God created the earth in 7 days'.

Atheists on the other hand reject this.
Anyone who is against circular thinking or reasoning will reject this idea as documented fact whether religious or not.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

So let us make an equal playing field upon which to make a final conclusion.
Something to reject based on circular reasoning?
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

Let us apply the scientific method of evaluation to this, and call the 'Creation Theory' a scientific theory.

In doing so, Religious people now HAVE to produce the evidence to prove their claim.

How does science prove a theory is more than theory? Will we produce evidence to support theory or reality?
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

IF no evidence is tended, it will be relegated back to being just a hypothesis - a guess of wishful thinking (which they call Faith).

That would be one conclusion. Science does not necessarily tend to believe that without proof there is no reality, but rather an absence of evidence based on parameters of ideals and boundaries of knowledge and experience... Unless science has become a religion and searches for evidence of theory on faith.(Something I believe is not so far from truth)
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

IF evidence is presented that the 'God' in Genesis 1:1 refers to something real and not divine, and the 'creation' account can be shown to be about something else real and not divinely produced, then this would prove 'The Creation Theory' FALSE.

Definitions of God would have to be established as well as understanding of God and what divine means in relationship to God as stated in the Bible. So far we are measuring religious and scientific terms. Neither may be within the realm of the original terms of which were presented at the time of those who spoke of God or divinity as they are documented.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

Possible Result and conclusion:
1.) Evidence produced - There is a God and the Creation did occur.
or
2.) Contrary evidence produced - There is (was) no GOD, and there was no CREATION of the earth in 7 days (as perceived by religious people from their interpretation of the Bible).

What do think of this challenge to produce actual evidence ?

It'd be like children discussing surgery after watching a documentary on the history of medicine.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#44023 - 06/26/12 03:27 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Eddy- You believe in god. Therefore you believe god exists. God only exists because you believe in the existence of the divine the spiritual, the afterlife--- Faith underpins your belief in every aspect of your life.

You can have no proof of the existence of god however, just your blinding certainty of his/her/its existence, which is fine as far as it goes. The problems occur when you, or others like you, expect the rest of us to live in obedience to your specific religious rules. We find that annoying!

Top
#44028 - 06/26/12 12:19 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Ellis]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I believe in science, I only recently was allowed to even consider a god because it is banned (well strongly frowned on officially) in my birth homeland.

There is however a problem at science if there really is a god he can do things that are outside science and any scientific methodology so hence it becomes a rather stupid argument.

In effect you can neither prove nor disprove god using science because a god is not bound to science laws, methods and experiments.

Thus you argument dies right there to scientific logic itself.


Edited by Orac (06/26/12 12:19 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44032 - 06/26/12 10:53 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
you, expect the rest of us to live in obedience to your specific religious rules.


I dont expect athiest to begin to think reasonably myself , that would be like expecting a completely isolated and sterile test tube to suddenly spring forth life from the glass that the test tube is made of.

voila !!! we did it , we created life !!! in a test tube !!!
now lets see vat de creationist have to say about dis !!!

scientist seem to want to create life so bad themselves that its eating away at science.

yet they hold that life could not have been created.


how dumb is that?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44035 - 06/27/12 03:21 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Actually Craig Venter in 2010 created the first synthetic bacteria went very close to doing what you describe Paul.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life)

Many news media described it as creating life from scratch

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...e-humanity.html)

However that is not technically true and as per Craig Venters own words

Originally Posted By: Crag Venter

The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be “creating life from scratch” but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA"



So even if they manage to take the next steps and manage to synthesize life from chemicals in a test tube it still doesn't answer the god question.

The question remains why is creating life possible at all because there has to be some reason for the rules that govern life and the universe and science can not exclude god from that answer.

Science does not hold that life could not have been created what it says if is if it was created by a god then it is outside science rules and therefore not science because you will never be able to prove or disprove it with science.

Science and Religion are not at war or even odds both essentially say the same thing. Religion says you will never recieve proof of god it is a matter of faith because god is not bound by our earthly laws. Science says if there is a god then there is no way to test it because a god would not obey science laws.

Religion comes down to a matter of faith and science is a matter of what is testable and the two concepts have no intersection.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44037 - 06/27/12 03:33 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: paul
yet they hold that life could not have been created.


how dumb is that?

Athiest scientists, and perhaps those scientists who have a particular concept of God quite unlike the Biblical kind, seem to hold the view that life must have originated as a result of (i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics. That doesn't strike me as dumb.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#44038 - 06/27/12 04:22 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Eddy Pengelly Offline
Member

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Southern Australia
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
How does science prove a theory is more than theory? Will we produce evidence to support theory or reality?
You missed out a very important part of proving a scientific theory:
If evidence is produced that directly contradicts the theory - then the theory is immediately shown to be false.
_________________________
Visit World Breaking Discoveries on-line

Top
#44039 - 06/27/12 04:31 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
creating new life out of already existing life


like I said , its easy to do you just need some created life to begin with.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44040 - 06/27/12 04:34 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
(i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics.


that in itself is dumb.

scientist will never ( create ) anything.

without using something that was created.

you cannot make a something from a nothing.

and that makes more sense to me , than to think that a something
can be made from a nothing.

point to a anything that a scientist has ever made from a nothing!

I know it must be mind boggling to strive to create something but you know that is why God is also called the Creator.

since that is his name then that means that he is the only one who can create.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44041 - 06/27/12 04:38 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Ellis]
Eddy Pengelly Offline
Member

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Southern Australia
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Eddy- You believe in god

Do I believe in gravity ? No - because it is a fact (independent of my beliefs or understandings).
Do I believe in ‘God’ ? No - because no evidence has been presented in over 3,000 years to substantiate the claim by religious groups that the account in the Old Testament at Genesis Chapter One is about a divine being as religiously taught.

Would I believe in ‘God’ and the ‘Creation’ if the proper evidence was presented ?
I could reply No or I could say Yes - but if the evidence shows it is a fact, then it is a fact (independent of my beliefs, understandings or bias).

BUT IF evidence was produced that showed what the religious groups cite as their evidence (ie. the words in the Bible) was NOT describing a ‘God’ nor ‘Creation’, then the facts would produce the conclusion that ‘they have been mislead for over 3,000 years’. (I find the word ‘wrong’ such a harsh word).
_________________________
Visit World Breaking Discoveries on-line

Top
#44042 - 06/27/12 04:46 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Eddy Pengelly Offline
Member

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Southern Australia
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
This God to which you refer, would have to be something in order to refer to it. Otherwise you are referring to an imagined straw man
To religious people, that ‘straw man’ is the one also cited in Exodus Chapter 3 where is it reported that ‘Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed’ and later Moses reports hearing a voice and being told the name of the Lord as “I AM”.

IF those words were to be shown that they were not referring to a ‘God’ nor a miraculous event, then the issue of “Is there a God” would be resolved as NO.
_________________________
Visit World Breaking Discoveries on-line

Top
#44043 - 06/27/12 05:23 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Eddy Pengelly Offline
Member

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Southern Australia
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Definitions of God would have to be established

Religions have established a definition. Their GOD is the one noted in Genesis 1:1 as “God”.
So let us use that word “God” too, as to what their God refers as part of this investigation.
This “God” is also associated with the other descriptions in Genesis Chapter One, so let us use those words too as part of the investigation.

Summary of terms to investigate:
1.) The religious “God” = the Hebrew word ‘God’ (Strong’s number 430) in Genesis 1:1.

2.) Here are extracted relevant keyword descriptions from Genesis Chapter One.
.2 "And the earth was {without form, and void; and darkness} was upon the face of {the deep}. And {the Spirit of God} moved upon the face {of the waters}"
.3 "and there was {light}"
.7 "made the {firmament}, and {divided the waters} which were under the firmament"
.8 "called the firmament {Heaven}"
.9-10 "let the {dry land appear}: and it was called Earth"
.24-27 "{fowls, beasts, cattle, man, creeping things, and woman}" put on the Earth (ie. dry land).

Hebrew word # 430 is the plural of H-word # 433 which meant ‘deity’: thus "God" is actually a plural word meaning 'gods in the ordinary sense' (ie. deities).
In the ‘religious sense’ it is perceived to be ‘The God’ - but we are looking at the original Hebrew meanings of the words and context and not what a later religious person deemed that word to mean.
btw. “Heaven” meant ‘sky’ and “earth” meant ‘dry land’.

Moses, who was an Egyptian priest, is attributed to writing this account. His first belief system was of ‘plural deities’ (ie. gods) such as the Ennhead of gods of Heliopolis.
So CONTEXT and original word MEANING show that the “God” in Genesis 1:1 was in fact about ‘deities’ {plural}.

Next is the Syntax of the original Hebrew sentence.
It read as “The beginning: created ‘God, heaven and earth’” and NOT ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and earth’. There is a big difference.
The English translation and rearranging of the verb has changed the objects to which it referred.
So originally Moses was reporting that ‘In the beginning: three things (deities, sky, dry land) were created’

You can now immediately see that there was originally no single ‘God’, and ‘he’ did not create the sky and land, but was part of the sequence of things ‘created’ in the beginning.
The rest of Genesis Chapter One (as highlighted by the {brackets} earlier) relates other things in the sequence that were also ‘created’ after the first three things.

Do any of you grasp what you are being told and have just read ?
_________________________
Visit World Breaking Discoveries on-line

Top
#44051 - 06/27/12 04:20 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
This God to which you refer, would have to be something in order to refer to it. Otherwise you are referring to an imagined straw man
To religious people, that ‘straw man’ is the one also cited in Exodus Chapter 3 where is it reported that ‘Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed’ and later Moses reports hearing a voice and being told the name of the Lord as “I AM”.

IF those words were to be shown that they were not referring to a ‘God’ nor a miraculous event, then the issue of “Is there a God” would be resolved as NO.
The something is still not defined. Your reference to Exodus is an event, not the reality of God but an experience one had with God.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Definitions of God would have to be established

Religions have established a definition. Their GOD is the one noted in Genesis 1:1 as “God”.
So let us use that word “God” too, as to what their God refers as part of this investigation.
This “God” is also associated with the other descriptions in Genesis Chapter One, so let us use those words too as part of the investigation.

Summary of terms to investigate:
1.) The religious “God” = the Hebrew word ‘God’ (Strong’s number 430) in Genesis 1:1.

2.) Here are extracted relevant keyword descriptions from Genesis Chapter One.
.2 "And the earth was {without form, and void; and darkness} was upon the face of {the deep}. And {the Spirit of God} moved upon the face {of the waters}"
.3 "and there was {light}"
.7 "made the {firmament}, and {divided the waters} which were under the firmament"
.8 "called the firmament {Heaven}"
.9-10 "let the {dry land appear}: and it was called Earth"
.24-27 "{fowls, beasts, cattle, man, creeping things, and woman}" put on the Earth (ie. dry land).

Hebrew word # 430 is the plural of H-word # 433 which meant ‘deity’: thus "God" is actually a plural word meaning 'gods in the ordinary sense' (ie. deities).
In the ‘religious sense’ it is perceived to be ‘The God’ - but we are looking at the original Hebrew meanings of the words and context and not what a later religious person deemed that word to mean.
btw. “Heaven” meant ‘sky’ and “earth” meant ‘dry land’.

Moses, who was an Egyptian priest, is attributed to writing this account. His first belief system was of ‘plural deities’ (ie. gods) such as the Ennhead of gods of Heliopolis.
So CONTEXT and original word MEANING show that the “God” in Genesis 1:1 was in fact about ‘deities’ {plural}.

Next is the Syntax of the original Hebrew sentence.
It read as “The beginning: created ‘God, heaven and earth’” and NOT ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and earth’. There is a big difference.
The English translation and rearranging of the verb has changed the objects to which it referred.
So originally Moses was reporting that ‘In the beginning: three things (deities, sky, dry land) were created’

You can now immediately see that there was originally no single ‘God’, and ‘he’ did not create the sky and land, but was part of the sequence of things ‘created’ in the beginning.
The rest of Genesis Chapter One (as highlighted by the {brackets} earlier) relates other things in the sequence that were also ‘created’ after the first three things.

Do any of you grasp what you are being told and have just read ?
Of course. However defining the ineffable is always an egoic venture. Religion may decide to define God and for arguments sake those who want to argue religion or belief will have to define God in order to make an argument for or against, but the truth of the matter is that scripture does not in and of itself define but rather point toward the reality of God and some qualities that can be defined or experienced.
Man chooses to take experience and qualities of experiences and apply them to define personal qualities in the beliefs of what God is.
If you investigate Vedic Scripture and the science of God that exists in both Western and Eastern philosophies, you will find that there is much more to God than any definition created thru religious decree. Man who establishes reality within the boundaries of the physical universe and ignores the understanding and experience of the spiritual nature of God as ones own nature will attempt to define that which exceeds determinate measure.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#44054 - 06/27/12 06:24 PM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: paul
yet they hold that life could not have been created.

how dumb is that?

Athiest scientists, and perhaps those scientists who have a particular concept of God quite unlike the Biblical kind, seem to hold the view that life must have originated as a result of (i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics. That doesn't strike me as dumb.

_____

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
(i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics.

that in itself is dumb.

Is it? Perhaps you can name something that you believe wasn't brought into existence by the evolution of the universe in accordance with those laws of nature.

Originally Posted By: paul
scientist will never ( create ) anything.

without using something that was created.

you cannot make a something from a nothing.

and that makes more sense to me , than to think that a something
can be made from a nothing.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so scientists say. They would therefore agree that creation within our existing universe is no more nor less than the rearrangement of energy into different forms. It's true that humans have not yet created life by that means. May I take it that you believe they never will?
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#44057 - 06/28/12 12:54 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
A more interesting question to me is, what was the "burning bush'? Is there any rational real world evidence for this curiosity? It's an oddity I have to admit. Any suggestions?

Top
#44058 - 06/28/12 01:16 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Eddy Pengelly]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
How does science prove a theory is more than theory? Will we produce evidence to support theory or reality?
You missed out a very important part of proving a scientific theory:
If evidence is produced that directly contradicts the theory - then the theory is immediately shown to be false.
Theory is theory whether accepted as true or false
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#44059 - 06/28/12 03:03 AM Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
What I find fascinating is Red and I are in the middle ground and I suspect we are the most scientific ones commenting but apology in advance to anyone if I missed your background.

If you asked us whether the literal translation of the story of creation as contained in the bible was accurate, I would answer no it's not possible. However as many have commented above the concept of god in the bible is described in rather all seeing all knowing entity terms. That makes proof or disproving impossible for science.

Probably an interesting question to throw out there is if life is found on say another planet and it may not be intelligent, it may just be bacteria how does that affect your view of god.

Science would say the above is highly likely because we have found water and all the building blocks of life in huge quantities in space and infact there may be bactera buried in the soil of mars.

My guess would be the more progressive religious will see this is just an extension of god doing work at a universe level but the fundementalists will get thrown a loop because life is only supposed to exist on earth.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.