As promised, here's a post compiling all my past conversations/debates featuring Michael Behe: chroniclesofstrength.substack.com/p/the-michael-behe-collection-conversations?r=q941p&s=w&

@martyfromnebraska1045

Жыл бұрын

Just wanted to say thanks for having the courage to openly co-sign ID. I was highly skeptical of the people involved because I was on the other side when I was younger. Your endorsement, given your obvious intellectual capabilities and honesty, opened me up enough to give it a fair hearing. While I’m not certain I’m convinced of their arguments just yet, I came to realize that they effectively got swept up in a political fight and were purged from the public debate by forces which have become much more obvious in the post-Trump era. It’s kinda fascinating to see, in retrospect, how I was taken for a ride by people who just lie, smear, name call, exaggerate, and stoke fear in their base. Since I’ve been able to see how this works in politics, I was able to see how they did this to the DI people. What’s even more disgusting, in my opinion, is how they deny the status of victimhood to the people they are victimizing. As NGOs work to get people removed from their jobs, they then also have the balls to deny that there’s any culture of fear, silence, or persecution as they’re creating that culture. It’s wild. The lack of substantial counter-arguments beyond “you’re a creationist who wants to institute a theocracy!” And “Academic institutions don’t endorse this (because we’ve purged everyone who does)” is telling. It’s really obvious that, at the very least, these people deserve a serious hearing. Mere guilt by association shouldn’t be enough. But when you’re up against power, I guess it is.

@PhilosophyforthePeople

Жыл бұрын

@@martyfromnebraska1045 I think you’re right on, here, Marty.

@vertigo2894

9 ай бұрын

Haven't a lot of this been disproven? Like the blood clotting thing and wales?

@Fanofou82

2 ай бұрын

Great Christian shirt you wore. Really professional.

@robbyrockets1

2 ай бұрын

​@@vertigo2894No.

You have to love the mindset of an evolutionist, they use intelligence, knowledge, and understanding with intent to explain the emergence of life but refuse to accept intelligence, knowledge, and understanding were necessary in the intent to create life.

@TrevoltIV

2 ай бұрын

Intelligence, knowledge, and understanding would be simply impossible if it were not for intelligence, knowledge, and understanding pre-existing us. How can we possibly trust our own intellect if said intellect emerged from non-intellect?

@danielhudon9456

20 күн бұрын

The ignorance in this comment is staggering.

@lies_worth_believing

4 күн бұрын

This comment might have made some sense 175 years ago. Ever since Darwin this comment became stupid. Learn a book

@TrevoltIV

4 күн бұрын

@@lies_worth_believing Darwin didn’t even attempt to offer an explanation for the origin of life. He assumed the prior existence of life.

I've always thought of mental process as the antithesis of natural process, that's why we find they are mutually exclusive in nature and function. It seems to me that if the space-time-matter-energy of the world is under the thermodynamic law to break down, run-down, disseminate, or lose energy, then mental processes are constantly attempting to build up, organize, functionalize, and aggrandize, properties that natural processes do not have any ability to do. But in between this cline is programmed "mental" process, those processes that our mentality programs to mimic the building, organizing, etc. that we accomplish, such as computer programming. Trees and plant life certainly demonstrate this type of functionality. But then we must ask, if we program computers, who is programming trees, plants, etc.? But that is a separate question entirely. I like CS Lewis' argument that the creation doesn't relate to its creator as side-by-side entities that discover each other, but the relation is best characterized as Hamlet to Shakespeare. Hamlet will never see Shakespeare from within the play in which he's placed, but the play is patterned after his authorship on every level.

Hey Pat love your channel! Do you have any good introductory epistemology book recommendations? Thanks!

@PhilosophyforthePeople

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Brennan! I like Plantinga’s work a good bit (Knowledge and Christian Belief is very intro). For a more traditional Thomistic account, see Man’s Knowledge of Reality by Wilhemsen or Philosophy of Knowledge by Kenneth Gallagher.

Love Dr. Behe. Unfortunate that so much attention is paid to not serious people who bully people into going along with their presuppositions. Sad that we allow them to.

@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n

8 ай бұрын

most trolls online that support the new secular order use dozens and dozens of alt accounts to boost themselves and talk to themselves. even sometimes promoting a character with a backstory/worldview they disagree with and talk to it setting up these long terms narratives in comments sections. now imagine devoting ur entire life like that to countering something that doesnt exist

@VACatholic

8 ай бұрын

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n With ChatGPT, they don't even have to have people doing it anymore.

@lies_worth_believing

4 күн бұрын

If bhee was an actual scientist, he would write papers for the scientific community and try and convince scientists. But he doesn't because he's not a scientist. He's a liar for Jesus and he's conning you.

@VACatholic

4 күн бұрын

@@lies_worth_believing No lie is worth believing, especially not the one you just spewed.

great vdieo

I can't make heads or tails of this discussion. Anyway, I heard one guy say that he doesn't believe God created man because he believes that God has no desire to create man. If I understood this correctly, then I think this is putting it very lightly. I believe that God doesn't even NEED to create man because He (God) is already perfect. So the question is why Did He? This is because there is so much Love between the FATHER and the SON that there is more than enough Love to share with man. It's like there are couples who has so much love between them that they adopt more children on top of their real children.

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

God told the ancient prophets Abraham and Moses that he has spirit children and he wants them to bemyrulymhappy, which requires that that acquire physical bodies, Jesus st as Jesus Christ did, in order to become like God. Belief that all humans are literally the spirit children of Father in His aven was taught by early Christian fathers like Origen. And the Eastern Orthodox churches preserve the ancient Christian teaching that "God became man (in Christ) so that men can become God". Irenaeus of Lyon. This is the doctrine of THEOSIS and is still taught in Orthodox churches. God lovesmus as his children, and enables us to become like his son Jesus, with an immortal and exalted physical body like the Father. Christ enables all to be resurrected, and by faith to be exalted and perfected.

Hey, do you know of any good philosophical books on the Eucharist? Information about spatial extension in the Eucharist?

@PhilosophyforthePeople

Жыл бұрын

Google Alexander Pruss's philosophical lecture on the Eucharist.

@Durziage

Жыл бұрын

Also, Brett Salkeld has a book on Transubstantiation that has generated a lot of discussion. I don’t know if it goes into spatial extension but I think it’d be worth checking out.

@CatholicismRules

Жыл бұрын

Thank you both!

@CatholicismRules

Жыл бұрын

@@PhilosophyforthePeople Also, which books by Lonergan (compilations of his essays and whatnot) do you suggest I read first? This is my senior year in college and I'm taking a gap year next year. That being the case, I want to line up a reading list!

@PhilosophyforthePeople

Жыл бұрын

@@CatholicismRules Depends what you're interested. For his general epistemology, which ties into a rather fascinating argument for God, then definitely read Insight. If you're wrestling with questions of grace, free will, and predestination, then Grace and Freedom. And of course his Triune God: Systematics for working through trinitarian difficulties, which he is brilliant on.

Lets say that an intelligence had a hand in designing some of these biological machines. Presumably that would have to be at the level of DNA 'programming'? I'm wondering at what point this would be. Is it spontaneous changes or during some specific process and how does a DNA change at some point in time propagate through all the cells of an organisms. Presumably near conception?

@davidwaugh3824

13 күн бұрын

And answer came there none............................

Dr. Behe is dope

@RoninTF2011

Жыл бұрын

Nope, he is a filthy liar

And EVEN if the book were written in a different language, we would recognize the design in it. When we look into the cell, the closer we look, we see an invisible hand.

Maybe in a revised edition of his books, Dr Behe shoukd add a new Chapter Zero, front and centre of the book in question, answering all the objections by the press that they keep repeating so that they stop outting them in the reviewnof the book cos theyre already answered in the book!

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

He has done precisely that. His critics lack the honesty to actually ponder his arguments.

@TheSharpSword1

3 ай бұрын

@@raymondswenson1268 can you back up your claim with examples right now or ur bullocks

ALL life fulfills all the requirements of a necessity for the origin and maintenance of life, plain and simple.

I just do not get why you would need irreducible complexity for his initial argument: 1. A mind behind it is the ONLY observed explanation for parts arranged as a machine with a purpose. 2. We observe parts arranged as machines with a purpose in biological machines. Therefore A mind is behind biological machines.

Every time I watch these wonderful ID scientists, Dr. Behe, Dr. Meyer, Dr. Tour....go up against these chemical origin of life scientists, it always reminds me of the dialog between Dr. Tyrell and Roy Batty explaining to him why he could not extend life.....life is not easy to make. (Movie referenced...Blade Runner 1984)

@spamm0145

6 ай бұрын

Imagine the obstacle blocking the understanding of life is represented by a 10 foot thick wall, mankind will have made a slight dent by the time we are extinct.

Hasn't a lot of this been disproven? Like the blood clotting thing and wales?

@PhilosophyforthePeople

9 ай бұрын

Proponents of ID would contend not. Of course, you’ll have to read their response to such objections and decide for yourself.

@spamm0145

6 ай бұрын

You can force a square block into a round hole if you're very determined and proponents of evolution are extremely good at interpreting data to fit their paradigm

@LuciferAlmighty

5 ай бұрын

Behe has been refuted ad nauseam.

Dr. Michael Behe must be a master of all knowledge, I like it a little more than dunk of a bull.

@lies_worth_believing

4 күн бұрын

He's not even a real scientist. Real scientists try and convince the scientific community of their ideas. B. He writes books for the ignorant public and they lap it up. He's just another liar for Jesus

Quick suggestion: please place your webcam on a separate surface from your computer/table cos everytime you hit the table, your camera view shakes and thats distracting and doesnt come across as pro.

I think where he is going wrong is a confusion between purpose and function.

Now we have determined our Creator exists now the question is; how can we communicate with Him?

@sudamadas344

5 ай бұрын

Communicate through sound...by uttering or chanting or singing His Holy Names.

@zpd8003

4 ай бұрын

yea i wonder why we don't hear from that 'creator' 🤣

@jameshale6401

3 ай бұрын

Do you need to know all about anything to know it exist if so you believe in nothing You know about good and bad thats the start line And you dont know all about that but know enough to choose tons of things in life

Nice to see Michael Behe. Great interview. Edit...i appreciate you are setting up objections to Behe, but i feel like you got stuck in the philosophical weeds and beat a dead horse on philosophical objections over the scientific ones.

As a biologist, the idea of evolution through random error seems foolish these days. We all study many processes like endosymbiosis, whole gene duplication, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, gene jumping and so on that produce huge changes. We also study adaptive radiation where after a snowball earth, for example, species rapidly evolve to fill millions of empty niches. Over millions of years, new Classes, Orders, Families and so on emerge time and time again. In the vey least, some cooperative consciousness is involved, even at a basic level, with a decision-making process of evaluating, remembering and decision making taking place. It is intelligence at every level finding the best alternative to suit the local circumstances. It is very sophisticated, multi-level intelligence. Call it intelligent design? Sure. Irreducible complexity? It remains a puzzle for scientists. Maybe in 50 years we will develop more knowledge about how that might take place. It seems to happen millions and millions of times, and I can’t yet just say “God did it”.

@spamm0145

6 ай бұрын

Academics often abandon their common sense when it comes to science when in fact its an invaluable tool, I once knew a guy who was very knowledgeable in physics, math, and geology, we both stumbled across '2+2=4' formed by rocks in the woods we were walking through and my friend asked 'I wonder how this got here?', I didn't need the physics, math, and geology, so stated 'dude, its purposefully arranged information, obviously placed there by an intelligent agent'. He's still stuck on where DNA came from.

Anchor your camera.

He was refuted during Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board.

@markrutledge5855

7 ай бұрын

Not exactly. What doomed the Dover School Board was to its overt desire to use ID curriculum as a way of advocating for a religious world view. The Judge Jones also concluded that “while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” I think in 2005 that was probably true. It may still be today. What has changed in the past 20 years is the growing recognition that the mechanism of natural selection and genetic mutation is grossly insufficient to account for the rise of new species. Darwinian evolution should be probably be taught in public schools with an asterisk.

@keithford245

7 ай бұрын

@@markrutledge5855 What are these changes that have occurred in the last 20 years?

@markrutledge5855

7 ай бұрын

Are you familiar with the work of the Altenberg 16?

@keithford245

7 ай бұрын

@@markrutledge5855 No

@markrutledge5855

7 ай бұрын

You might want to familiarize yourself with their work in evolutionary science and theory. This is cutting edge of current evolutionary thinking.

If you start with a conclusion and then work backwards to prove it, then you will rarely find truth. Especially if you identify your conclusion as "true" at the onset of your investigation.

@0607guy

14 сағат бұрын

Are you talking about methodological naturalism????? The Cosmo is all that is or was or ever will be?? Carl Sagan. Abiogenesis must be true???

What is wrong with KZread I can't believe I'm seeing this video now 😔 Are they purposely trying to keep these videos from people.

@spamm0145

6 ай бұрын

They are not promoted by the Big Bang, Origin of Life, Evolutionary loving algorithm coded by the God hating KZread devil worshipping owners

Bhee and his colleagues were so utterly defeated in Dover versus kitzmiller that a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan utterly through their case out. Intelligent design is simply religion dressed up as science

Irreducible Complexity is a creationist concept. It is “I believe in god, therefore X” which is not at all scientific. You cannot falsify god. You cannot test a hypothesis based on “surely god did it”.

15:50... and we understand this because it has been demonstrated to be true. We have proven humans make ink and use it to write books. No such connection has been demonstrated between the universe and a creator.

@spamm0145

6 ай бұрын

There is an immense amount of evidence to support the need for a creator from the macro to the micro, the language within DNA is incredibly complex and beyond human capabilities even using the most advanced supercomputers. The universe has ultra fine tuning that enables life to exist and functions with precise mathematical precision. This was in effect before life even began, whether you believe in evolution or creation, the fact mathematics is vital in the universes ability to sustain life, begs the question how does such exquisite precision come about when its a well established fact that numbers are an abstract concept and can only reside in a mind, with no life in existence in the early stages of the universe there must of been a mind to implement the proven laws allowing life to flourish. Then we have the math throughout all of biological life, right down to the atomic scale, the invisible hand of God.

@sudamadas344

5 ай бұрын

There is method covered in the Vedic texts to ascertain this (thats the hypothesis). called Bhakti Yoga. Just like a science experiment, you have to be willing practise it. Tonperform the experiment. But it requires, humilty, dedecation and an open mind. You have to be willing to perform the experiment in order to verfity its hypothesis.

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

The living cells is a computer controlled mechanism of incredible complexity. It is BEYOND the capacity of humans to duplicate. If you can only believe in minds as DUMB as your own, you are ignoring the wonderful discoveries of the past 50 years. Writing can be in stone, in metal, and in computer code. The SETI search for radio signals from other civilizations asserts we can recognize intelligence without ink and paper.

Atheisss say all you need to do is need or want and evo kicks in You would need a brain to know if you need to evo So you would need a brain from the start and what container that would needed to self evolve held that brain To many dead ends for that starting line thinking

And to the young Christian philosopher with the crucifix on the background, shal we start our lab sessions in the name of God, and then conclude that God exists and created everything? Forgive me for doubting your critical objectivity.

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

Are all the atheist scientists supposed to be rejected and homeless nem because of their religious beliefs in the magical qualities of random mutation? You are avoiding thinking about the scientific facts by your bias.

@sincereflowers3218

4 күн бұрын

@@raymondswenson1268would you like to come debate on this topic? I am sure I will not convince you of anything, but I am certain that there’s absolutely no evidence of intelligent design.

You have not refuted anything. Your theories and hypotheses are actually completely un scientific themselves. But I'll forget about that for the moment. And just ask one question. If there is no intelligent desiand generally speaking, everything was a sort of random occurrences or events over long.s of time. That means that everything is random, including the thoughts in your brand at this very moment. So your brain is just a random occurrence. It was not designed to be a brain to think to use logic. So that would mean every thought you have is also just a random event. So your brain was not designed to think. Why would you believe anything that you do think. Is this theory of yours? That debunks intelligent designs supposedly something that you designed with your intelligence. Or is it just random words coming out of your mouth? How did you come up with an intelligent design theory? If intelligent design does not exist? It sounds like you're sayintelligent design doesn't exist except when it refers to you. It's actually completely illogical. The problem is not that The lack of evidence for God or an intelligent designer. The problem is you do not want to believe in one. A true scientist follows where the evidence takes him even if he doesn't like, where it takes him. All evidence suggest a creator a designer. Despite the evidence you refuse to believe, and that's the problem.

Michael, as a cultural anthropologist, and while I do not see the evidence backing your inferences on ID, I have come to respect the sincerity of your work and public performance. Nonetheless, I want to urge you to consider that science is never conducted in a socio-political vacuum. I am afraid that the religious anti-science crowd is something you need to consider when framing your responses. The earth was not created in six days, even if an interlocutor has an ak47 pointing at me.

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

Dr Behe does NOT claim the creation took place in 6 24 hour days. Your mind is clean sed by all sorts of bad assumptions. Please READ the detailed science in Dr Be he's excellent books.

You can always logically pick apart an argument but when you zoom back out and look at everything, God is the ONLY explaination. God unites science, philosophy, morality AND history (i.e. psychology).

@MoreSCI-LessFI

8 ай бұрын

Textbook argument from incredulity fallacy.

@Wholly_Fool

8 ай бұрын

@MoreSCI-LessFI Is there such a thing as a fallacy? See, Socratic logic doesn't work when you're talking beyond the universe. If there is no God, EVERYTHING you believe is a fallacy. You couldn't even trust your perception.

@spamm0145

6 ай бұрын

@@Wholly_Fool 100% with you, he thinks dumb molecules can build a brain that comprehends non material abstract concepts, then uses that brain to deny complexity beyond belief does not require a designer.

You might as well call this answering the best objections to a flat Earth. Because just like the flat Earth intelligent design is wrong so it doesn't make any sense to answer objections to it because it's just wrong..

MB conflates purpose with function. It's an equivocation fallacy combined with an argument from analogy. The only reason you know there is a purpose behind human-designed things is the prior knowledge and evidence that humans designed those things. One of his favorite examples about how we recognize design in Mount Rushmore... There is no reason to think that if an alien race with no prior knowledge of humans or human faces saw Mount RUshmore for the first time they would think it was designed and not a naturally occurring rock formation. He is poisoning the well with these fallacious analogies where our own knowledge and bias tells us that humans made that thing. There is a reason it's called the watchmaker FALLACY. A proper analogy would be if you see a shape or an object that is completely unknown and unrecognizable to you and you have zero intuitions about it, you have no reason to think 'design'. That's where his argument falls apart because all his analogies just come down to intuition based on human-created things. Intuition can get things very wrong when it comes to things you've never seen and don't understand. Theists really want to be able to use analogies to prove something but analogies are not arguments. Does this guy not recognize his own anthropomorphic bias in these analogies? Here is how absurd these arguments are. I can use the same logic and assert that ALL fundamental particles (quarks, electrons, etc.) must be designed because they serve the purpose of being constituent parts for other things, since we know that humans design complex things from simpler things. There is no need to talk about bacterial flagellums or human eyes or biology altogether, because based on that logic EVERYTHING is designed because everything consists of particles which serve that purpose. See the problem? I've asserted/made-up an INTENDED purpose in particles, when i'm actually only describing a function. Every single thing in this universe has a function i.e. every thing does what it does, and the second you conflate function with purpose - which is the basis of this entire nonsense argument, you've made a fallacious argument and you can use that to say that everything is designed. But if everythign is design, you can't distinguish designed things from non-designed things because there are no non-designed things. See how intuition can lead you down to some ridiculous conclusions? Also IC has been thoroughly debunked by the science community.

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

You are goingmon a philosophical rant because you cannot offer a real explanation on f how intricate mechanisms come into being by random mutations, when mutations are almost always deadly and let fe killers ng. Mutations kills last fe, it does not endow lol fe with superpowers like the X-Men. The EPA operates elaborate enforcement mechanisms to prevent our exposure to mutation by radiation and hazardous chemicals. Mutations are not good or desirable, and claiming them as the sole source of evolutionary progress is contrary to modern environmental science and medicine. Darwinism is a 19th Century faith that was based on totally invalid understandings about the fundamental nature of life. Darwin was egregiously wrong, and trying to claim that throwing a wrench into the mechanisms of life will be magically creative is a statement of faith that is contrary to science, including math and computer science ( what I was trained in and worked in).

@zpd8003

4 ай бұрын

@@raymondswenson1268 correction: i don't PRETEND to offer a real explanation because i'm not in the habit of making shit up just to make myself feel better like a good little bible thumper. I"m perfectly fine saying "I don't know" because that's the only intellectually honest answer which most bird-brain theists don't understand. From what you've said here, you understand NOTHING nothing about mutations. It's equivalent to saying "the earth is flat because that's what my eyes see". The mostly harmful mutations you are talking about are caused by toxic substances that we are exposed to on a daily basis as a result of technological progress and industrialization, which has NOTHING to do with evolutionary mutations. I suggest reading more actual science and watching less brainwashy creationist videos on youtube. Theism is a brain disease that's holding back society because when you accept a 'god' or a 'creator' as the answer to everything to make yourself feel good, you have no reason to keep searching for the real answers. Can you just imagine where we'd be right now if the answer to every question was "god had a reason to do it this way" instead of doing real science? Theism (and other kinds of superstition) is useless in a science lab. Appealing to fictional characters and imaginary friends has no predictive power, and it discourages curiosity and research. Without theism and the dark ages, we would have colonized space by now and would've done so much more. Theism and blind faith need to be eradicated.

@zpd8003

3 ай бұрын

@@raymondswenson1268 maybe you should read a biology book, learn something instead of blaming others for your ignorance. It's not atheists' job to get you to get schooled. All you have is fallacies. "I can't imagine how... therefore I"ll fill that gap with an imaginary cosmic sky daddy that makes me feel good". I'll let you find out on your own which fallacy it is. Evolution deniers and flat earthers aren't worth the time. You're too far gone. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity, it's proven fact. Allele changes have been observed in many lab experiments, and that's completely separate from all the evidence in geology and anthropology. But even if we knew nothing about evolution, you should still ask yourself why we share 99% of our DNA with chimps, if we are supposed to be some sky daddy's special creation. Not the best 'designer' if you ask me, making us so similar to animals, with the same kinds of physical problems and weaknesses, while claiming we're so superior to them. Did your 'god' also design child cancer and birth deformities? What a failure. 🤣 So yea, even if we knew nothing about evolution, it would still make more logical sense that humans and animals had common ancestors and not some invisible floating mind-creator. Also, we've never observed minds existing without brains, so evolution has way more evidence than your imaginary sky daddy character.

why did God design painful cancer in young children?

The real problem for intelligent design is the designer. You see if you're proposing some kind of supernatural superbeing as the designer, you first need to justify why it needs to be a supernatural superbeing in the first place, but by that point who cares? you're just proposing creationism with extra steps. If on the other hand you hold an agnostic position on the designer - could be natural, could be supernatural - you're accepting the proposition that a designer of sufficient intelligence and complexity to design all life on this planet could come about as a result of natural processes. and if the designer can be the result of natural processes .... then so can all life on this planet

@raymondswenson1268

4 ай бұрын

You just invited magic, claimng a designer could spring forth out of "natural processes". Not even atheist scientists are proposing that.

@5ynthesizerpatel

4 ай бұрын

@@raymondswenson1268 so you're saying that irrespective of the designer, Intelligent Design requires some kind of magical / supernatural process?

Man get to the point 11:41

A computer made life and the rest of the universe. DNA is a code that must come from intelligence. A GOD would not need any code!

@johnhoey7717

10 күн бұрын

That argument ONLY works if it stops right there. Unfortunately for you and your assertion, it doesn’t. Who or What designed the “computer” that made life and the rest of the universe? Whatever you do-don’t bring a knife to a gunfight :)

Question to Dr. Behe: How does its feel to completely drop your scientific integrity to advocate for a cult, and basicly lie to your audience?

@catholic_based534

Жыл бұрын

lol

@SCS912

Жыл бұрын

Yo Rones, I need you to explain what you mean by this.

@RoninTF2011

Жыл бұрын

@@SCS912 How can I get more direct: He lies to his audience and he drops teh scientific approach to problems to advocate for a religious cult.

@RoninTF2011

Жыл бұрын

@@SCS912 "Why would someone with the educational background of Behe want to lie and take an unpopular position among the scientific community?" Religious believe...a sufficent explaination

@hisham031170

Жыл бұрын

Dr Behe knows that theory of evolution is pseudoscience.

You talk too much!