How could an intelligent person still believe in evolution?
20 Jun 2017, 10:28 am
Quote:
What It’s Like to Live in a Universe of Ten Dimensions
Think that's not religious?
10 qlippoth in the kabbalist tree of life.
You should hear Carl Sagan, waxing poetic, about Shiva, some time. Sounds distinctly religious.
People are using the secular institution, as cover for religion, like the soccer clubs, which lynch people.
At least, in the Greco Roman mystery schools, they propose some reason or method, by which the original atom, or singularity, grows and evolves. You don't have one, much less have you tested it.
These are religious claims, which make people upset and angry.
You roll your voices, quite hypnotically. Listen to some of these. He could narrate a story book. Looking at his face is like some kind of drug induced high, positive affirmations and endorphins. You could imagine his eyes staring in separate directions, while he focuses on the navel.
There is adrenaline, in the air, when you are contradicted. Bernie Sander's face was visibly red, when discussing Christianity. Where is that in the equation. Can we test your upset, as proof of scientific principle. We might literally be able to test your feelings, because your version of the truth is supposed to be relative to the observer. You use uncertainty and principle in the same phrase, but don't think that's an example of magical thinking.
Why can't Shroedinger's cat be restored by a faith healer?
20 Jun 2017, 11:52 am
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Evolution was discovered by brilliant scientists. Creationism was made up by Middle Eastern terrorists who took women as sex slaves during war and also stoned homosexuals to death.
Nowadays, big corporations promote creationism because they want to keep everyone stupid, homophobic and obediant.
Nowadays, big corporations promote creationism because they want to keep everyone stupid, homophobic and obediant.
No offense, but you just prove my point. You sound indoctrinated and almost like a robot for evolution theory. Real scientists don't play favorites. The idea of Science is objective reasoning. What you just said sounds like a religion in of itself.
20 Jun 2017, 11:56 am
b9 wrote:
Quote:
How could an intelligent person still believe in evolution?
it is evident to the logical mind.
the "theory" of evolution is not a mathematical one, it is a justifiable and empirical set of logical observations whether or not one has witnessed it in progress.
it revolves around the concept of the "survival of the fittest"
genetic inheritance has been proven, and genetic mutation has been proven.
instead of stating at the primordial soup, i will just describe a snapshot of the process.
if the environment within which a set of flourishing organisms changes to their detriment, then the importance of genetic mutations comes into play.
some organisms will be better suited to the new environment than others, and their rate of transmission of their genes (containing the inherited "mutation" of the original common gene and who's serendipitous effect was to improve their coping ability) will ensure that their progeny is better suited to thrive within the new environment. and they will all have that genetic "mutation" which is then not able to be called a "mutation".
we see it everywhere.
examples are flowering plants. in the beginning, plants propagated by spores blown in the wind, and their chances of fertilizing another plant was random and dependent of the wind direction.
but some insects liked the taste of them (this is very simplistic), and they learned to visit those plants, and they therefore introduced an element of "deliberation" to those plant's spores dispersal and propagation.
so as more plants thrived that were attractive to insects and not reliant on the whims of the breezes, successive mutations that were beneficial ones (rare for a mutation) that took root were superior in attracting insects, and .....blah...blah...etc.....
that is what the "competition" element" is.
none of those plants is aware of anything, and they do not consciously "compete", but they do compete in a circumstantial way.
but as many plants evolve to be ever more attractive to insects (due to the propagation rate of desirable mutations) then other plants go through the same process, and eventually flowers come into play.
specializations start to appear because insects also dovetailed in their evolutionary reaction to this into various types, which were symbiotic, and so colors start to become important.
but none of this is planned. it is all just the path of least resistance for all organism's ancestry that has built all kingdoms of life as we know it.
it is a logically incontrovertible observation.
___________
another few examples but just summary ones:
antibiotics become ineffective after a while due to evolution.
there is a formula that one can apply to a pathogen to determine the structure of the new antibiotic to deal with it.
but if it is not 100% effective, then the logarithmic progression of organisms that can survive it become the new scourge.
it's always a battle between us and the diseases.
when we think we have everything covered to our highest intellectual degree, then something will slip through and cause the extinction of us.
if only we did not fight the battle at the start with such biological weapons as antibiotics, then ...who knows?
it is the concentration of crowding of humans close together that puts them all at so much risk eventually.
anyway that's all.
someones ringing my phone.
Actually, it is defies logic. When you break the processes down, the evolutionary theory seems contrary to logic. I don't have time to go into every detail of debate, because I have been doing this for years, and it would take 100 pages in a thread if not more. But I'm going with logic, that evolution is actually not logical in any sense of the word.
20 Jun 2017, 12:05 pm
rvacountrysinger wrote:
b9 wrote:
Quote:
How could an intelligent person still believe in evolution?
it is evident to the logical mind.
the "theory" of evolution is not a mathematical one, it is a justifiable and empirical set of logical observations whether or not one has witnessed it in progress.
it revolves around the concept of the "survival of the fittest"
genetic inheritance has been proven, and genetic mutation has been proven.
instead of stating at the primordial soup, i will just describe a snapshot of the process.
if the environment within which a set of flourishing organisms changes to their detriment, then the importance of genetic mutations comes into play.
some organisms will be better suited to the new environment than others, and their rate of transmission of their genes (containing the inherited "mutation" of the original common gene and who's serendipitous effect was to improve their coping ability) will ensure that their progeny is better suited to thrive within the new environment. and they will all have that genetic "mutation" which is then not able to be called a "mutation".
we see it everywhere.
examples are flowering plants. in the beginning, plants propagated by spores blown in the wind, and their chances of fertilizing another plant was random and dependent of the wind direction.
but some insects liked the taste of them (this is very simplistic), and they learned to visit those plants, and they therefore introduced an element of "deliberation" to those plant's spores dispersal and propagation.
so as more plants thrived that were attractive to insects and not reliant on the whims of the breezes, successive mutations that were beneficial ones (rare for a mutation) that took root were superior in attracting insects, and .....blah...blah...etc.....
that is what the "competition" element" is.
none of those plants is aware of anything, and they do not consciously "compete", but they do compete in a circumstantial way.
but as many plants evolve to be ever more attractive to insects (due to the propagation rate of desirable mutations) then other plants go through the same process, and eventually flowers come into play.
specializations start to appear because insects also dovetailed in their evolutionary reaction to this into various types, which were symbiotic, and so colors start to become important.
but none of this is planned. it is all just the path of least resistance for all organism's ancestry that has built all kingdoms of life as we know it.
it is a logically incontrovertible observation.
___________
another few examples but just summary ones:
antibiotics become ineffective after a while due to evolution.
there is a formula that one can apply to a pathogen to determine the structure of the new antibiotic to deal with it.
but if it is not 100% effective, then the logarithmic progression of organisms that can survive it become the new scourge.
it's always a battle between us and the diseases.
when we think we have everything covered to our highest intellectual degree, then something will slip through and cause the extinction of us.
if only we did not fight the battle at the start with such biological weapons as antibiotics, then ...who knows?
it is the concentration of crowding of humans close together that puts them all at so much risk eventually.
anyway that's all.
someones ringing my phone.
Actually, it is defies logic. When you break the processes down, the evolutionary theory seems contrary to logic. I don't have time to go into every detail of debate, because I have been doing this for years, and it would take 100 pages in a thread if not more. But I'm going with logic, that evolution is actually not logical in any sense of the word.
sure. so... what story is stronger than evolution, in scientific terms, i.e.: must be testable through experiment and must allow to make predictions?
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
20 Jun 2017, 12:09 pm
I should have re-worded my question. I'm sure there are intelligent people who believe in evolution... But to me, evolution is entirely illogical. God is much more logical. I believe in intelligent design. That everything was made according to its own kind. That it didn't "evolve" but rather it had a purpose and an exact place in the universe from its very conception . I believe such things as "super bugs" are actually demonic in nature, as are most viruses. But everything has its purpose in our world. I will say honestly, that I am not a science person, in general. I am more into the arts and creative writing. But I studied evolution in school, and as a I grew older I had more questions than answers, and most teachers were left puzzled because evolution could not satisfy these inquiries.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
20 Jun 2017, 1:26 pm
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I should have re-worded my question. I'm sure there are intelligent people who believe in evolution... But to me, evolution is entirely illogical. God is much more logical. I believe in intelligent design. That everything was made according to its own kind. That it didn't "evolve" but rather it had a purpose and an exact place in the universe from its very conception . I believe such things as "super bugs" are actually demonic in nature, as are most viruses. But everything has its purpose in our world. I will say honestly, that I am not a science person, in general. I am more into the arts and creative writing. But I studied evolution in school, and as a I grew older I had more questions than answers, and most teachers were left puzzled because evolution could not satisfy these inquiries.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
If you would like to learn more about evolution and just how much evidence there is to support the theory, and how much evidence is lacking that disproves it, check out the book "Finding Darwin's God". It was written by a catholic biologist named Kenneth R. Miller. In the book, aside from all the evidence he presents that supports evolutionary theory and all the creationist myths he debunks with empirical evidence and logic, he talks about his own faith and how he was able to reconcile it with science. It's possible to believe in God and scientific theory at the same time. Einstein believed in God, too. Many scientists do--they just don't let their faith cloud their reason and judgment. Instead, their faith fuels their appreciation for and wonder at what they learn about Creation through science.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins- ... in%27s+god
20 Jun 2017, 1:33 pm
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I should have re-worded my question. I'm sure there are intelligent people who believe in evolution...
Yes, most intelligent people accept things that are demonstrably accurate.
What we have today isn't even just Darwins evolutionary theory; it was merged with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s, and with the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, we are basically at a point where we can read our own source code. Guess what we're not finding there? I'll give you a hint: "dog, but backwards".
rvacountrysinger wrote:
But to me, evolution is entirely illogical. God is much more logical.
Which god? And which version of that god? Considering the number of gods humankind has made up throughout its history, the likelyhood that your interpretation of your version of your specific deity should happen to be the single true one out of millions of false ones is, shall we say, slim.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I believe in intelligent design.
Which is religion pretending to be scientific though lies and obfuscation. Kitzmiller v. Dover.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
That everything was made according to its own kind.
"Kind" is an insufficiently specific term for scientific purposes.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
That it didn't "evolve" but rather it had a purpose and an exact place in the universe from its very conception .
If that were true, then there would be no fossil record at all. All creatures would be as they were and would remain as they are for all time. This is not so. Furthermore, considering the number of species that humans have themselves driven to exctinction, such a "perfectly designed" ecosystem would have imploded by now.
Quote:
I believe such things as "super bugs" are actually demonic in nature, as are most viruses. But everything has its purpose in our world.
Suppose I use antibiotics to kill a population of germs, and a few of the germs happen to be immune to that antibiotic and as such can thrive and multiply whilst their brethren perish. Suppose that population grows until I use another antibiotic and repeat the same process. Should I not expect to end up with a population of germs resistant to multiple kinds of antibiotics, and instead test for the presence of demons?
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I will say honestly, that I am not a science person, in general.
That much is evident.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I am more into the arts and creative writing.
Certainly imaginitive.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
But I studied evolution in school, and as a I grew older I had more questions than answers, and most teachers were left puzzled because evolution could not satisfy these inquiries.
Let me guess, you asked your biology teacher about cosmology, and proclaimed victory when they failed to answer?
Look up the term "null hypothesis", and understand that god isn't it.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution.
Do you understand the concept of a consensus? We do not entertain those who would suggest alchemy be taught over chemistry. We pay no mind to people suggesting maybe phlogiston is actually real and adherents to Lamarckian evolution are rightly laughed at and shunned from serious scientific discourse.
Quote:
Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe.
Acceptance in the face of a mountain of evidence the magnitude of which is by now nigh unfathomable is not indoctrination, and what sense does it make to hold animosity toward something that you don't believe exists? There are some people who make it their mission to fight ignorance with knowledge, and where ignorance flourishes, so do gods. A coincidence, I'm sure.
rvacountrysinger wrote:
That would rock the boat.
People have died for proposing that maybe god isn't a necessary component of the universe. Get back to me when the reverse can be said to be even remotely true.
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Einstein believed in God
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-the man himself
_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.
20 Jun 2017, 1:42 pm
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I should have re-worded my question. I'm sure there are intelligent people who believe in evolution... But to me, evolution is entirely illogical. God is much more logical. I believe in intelligent design. That everything was made according to its own kind. That it didn't "evolve" but rather it had a purpose and an exact place in the universe from its very conception . I believe such things as "super bugs" are actually demonic in nature, as are most viruses. But everything has its purpose in our world. I will say honestly, that I am not a science person, in general. I am more into the arts and creative writing. But I studied evolution in school, and as a I grew older I had more questions than answers, and most teachers were left puzzled because evolution could not satisfy these inquiries.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
so... god made a perfect plan before creating the univerdse, and now the universe is going along his script?- I mean, in te sense that, evolution happened, but it was not this uncontrolled rando process, but god's masterplan?
or do you mean god created the world, as it is now, 6000 years, including fossilized dinosaur poop for us to find?
well. a society without divine order, i.e., a society in which we can vote for our leaders and not have a king, appointed by god- or in some cultures, a direct decendant from god- is something we fought over very long and hard. And since there's so many gods, and all of them have different laws, but none have proof of their existence for us, it seems that god, and with him the order of our society, is contingent and changeable. And that is a process we have been seeing since 1790, since the french revolution. God and his heavenly order had little place in modernity, let alone postmodernity. Now, on the brink of post-postmodernity, asking for god (and with it traditional order) - that's gone.
has been gone for centuries.
there are countries where there's still strong belief in god.
india. pakistan. iran. most african countries.
none of them are places I'd like to live. Hence my unwillingness to go back centuries and accept a blind belief in god.
evolution and science got us to the moon, we've been harvesting mouse-immune-cells since the early 20th century and we've been fusing them with human cells and using them to treat mundane stuff like psoriasis since the 70ies.
the guys who believe in god used to burn scientists.
that's why we don't want to go back. - science cures diseases, people who believe in god get ill and pray and burn the doctor on the stake.
so, maybe there's a god whose plan it all was, who created the univers- but he's definitely not in it, not exerting control over anything. - he's outside not part of physics, ...and then there's not much point in caring about him anyway.- he's just outside, and that's it. dancing the nataraja, with his ten heads and arms.
but just like mimi rogers in "the rapture", I 'd have to say: screw you, there was no reason to create us only to suffer.
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Jun 2017, 2:18 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I should have re-worded my question. I'm sure there are intelligent people who believe in evolution... But to me, evolution is entirely illogical. God is much more logical. I believe in intelligent design. That everything was made according to its own kind. That it didn't "evolve" but rather it had a purpose and an exact place in the universe from its very conception . I believe such things as "super bugs" are actually demonic in nature, as are most viruses. But everything has its purpose in our world. I will say honestly, that I am not a science person, in general. I am more into the arts and creative writing. But I studied evolution in school, and as a I grew older I had more questions than answers, and most teachers were left puzzled because evolution could not satisfy these inquiries.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
If you would like to learn more about evolution and just how much evidence there is to support the theory, and how much evidence is lacking that disproves it, check out the book "Finding Darwin's God". It was written by a catholic biologist named Kenneth R. Miller. In the book, aside from all the evidence he presents that supports evolutionary theory and all the creationist myths he debunks with empirical evidence and logic, he talks about his own faith and how he was able to reconcile it with science. It's possible to believe in God and scientific theory at the same time. Einstein believed in God, too. Many scientists do--they just don't let their faith cloud their reason and judgment. Instead, their faith fuels their appreciation for and wonder at what they learn about Creation through science.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins- ... in%27s+god
That's my view in a nutshell. I was raised in the Lutheran faith, and so believe in a God of a Triune nature. But I also can't deny the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Call what I believe theistic evolution.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Jun 2017, 3:05 pm
Wolfram87 wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Einstein believed in God
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-the man himself
My mistake. But my point still stands, that there are scientists who believe in God. Mendel (considered the founder of the study of genetics) was an Augustinian friar.
jrjones9933
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
20 Jun 2017, 3:18 pm
People want to imagine that scientists believe in their current version of the Xian god, because some scientists say, yes, they believe in god. However, when asked for details, scientists seem more like deists than christians. They don't subscribe to fringe weirdness that is hostile to science. Sure, the right can find a few evangelicals with advanced degrees. It takes all kinds.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
20 Jun 2017, 6:04 pm
I think with Einstein, in particular, it was his "god does not play dice"-statement, which made everyone go: "see, he said there's a god!" - but that statement of course was taken out of context, i.e. had nothing to do with his religious tendencies and was merely a poetic phrasing of a certain theory he had...
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
jrjones9933
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
20 Jun 2017, 6:45 pm
shlaifu wrote:
so, maybe there's a god whose plan it all was, who created the univers- but he's definitely not in it, not exerting control over anything. - he's outside not part of physics, ...and then there's not much point in caring about him anyway.- he's just outside, and that's it. dancing the nataraja, with his ten heads and arms.
but just like mimi rogers in "the rapture", I 'd have to say: screw you, there was no reason to create us only to suffer.
but just like mimi rogers in "the rapture", I 'd have to say: screw you, there was no reason to create us only to suffer.
Technically, it's eleven heads and ten thousand arms.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,534
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
20 Jun 2017, 6:59 pm
rvacountrysinger wrote:
I should have re-worded my question. I'm sure there are intelligent people who believe in evolution... But to me, evolution is entirely illogical. God is much more logical. I believe in intelligent design. That everything was made according to its own kind. That it didn't "evolve" but rather it had a purpose and an exact place in the universe from its very conception . I believe such things as "super bugs" are actually demonic in nature, as are most viruses. But everything has its purpose in our world. I will say honestly, that I am not a science person, in general. I am more into the arts and creative writing. But I studied evolution in school, and as a I grew older I had more questions than answers, and most teachers were left puzzled because evolution could not satisfy these inquiries.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
What I want to know is why are people unable to accept alternative theories to our existence? Its always evolution. Almost as if they are indoctrinated. And I believe, mainly, because they want to stamp out God. They can't accept a God of the universe. That would rock the boat.
One thing I can agree with you on - whatever you hold as the axiomatic center of your life and branch all logic outward from will intensely color how you see comparative or contrasting logical systems. If you then make that axiomatic center an article of faith it's invincible. Facts will bounce off of it like toothpicks off of tank armor.
A great example is with Daesh - on Sam Harris's most recent Waking Up podcast he interviewed Graeme Wood who recently wrote a book about them, had been able to meet with their supporters in the middle east as well as their mouthpiece in Australia to find out from them both what they believe and how they feel the effort is going in Iraq and Syria. In their minds their responsible for bringing in the apocalypse. Any setback is a test from Allah, thinning the heard of the lukewarm to make sure that the slices of heaven's pie are larger for the truest believers. It also doesn't bother many of them that there's neither a charted or Google-located island with a red one-eyed giant chained to a rock nor a huge iron wall in Asia holding the armies of Gog and Magog. The logic seems to be - God can make anything invisible; the seeming lack of evidence is a test of faith.
I'd also equally offer devout Communists - especially those of the 'It's never been tried yet' variety. They're saying the same exact thing that Islamists say about Caliphate.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,534
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
20 Jun 2017, 7:11 pm
As for the last piece - why is it so hard for people to accept other/alternative theories.
Those theories get spit-balled without any credible evidence. Typically if someone comes up with a theory, for honest reasons, and finds out that it doesn't hold they let go of it.
There's a wonderful transition to be seen from 4 million years ago to 60,000 years ago in our ancestral line. Our ape ancestors had 48 chromosomes, we know which pair fused to make 46 now. The one thing I would give you - I don't think it's necessarily a sure thing that we understand all of it. Mutation, even with the timescales involved, on its own doesn't a make a lot of sense. You also have certain traits that blossom in unconnected places at different times which is a difficult thing to explain by direct mutation. Either way the tree aspect of it, ie. the slow/progressive morphological changes can't really be doubted at this point. What seems to be suggested there - science is missing something about the value or even the autonomy of information in natural dynamic systems.
The other part, lets say that there is something seemingly (at least to us - now) supernatural in the process of how life conformed to different shapes or lead toward certain outcomes by bridging impossible odds - to even say that consciousness kicked off and began life rather than the other way around wouldn't be the same claim as 'Yahweh did it!', at least not in the formal Jewish/Catholic/Protestant sense. To suggest that it's either Yahweh or nothing is also a leap of logic that has no inherent reason for validation aside from, again, gratifying those who hold a 20th/21st century Evangelical read of the bible as the center from which they reason all other things from.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Is this abnormal for an autistic person? |
10 Feb 2025, 12:24 pm |
| Selecting the first option especially believing person |
18 Feb 2025, 8:42 pm |
| Autistic person locked up for 45 years no crime |
04 Mar 2025, 7:45 am |
| Notable person with Autism - Bill Gross Co-Founder of PIMCO |
19 Feb 2025, 2:03 pm |
