A Theory of Our Origin & fall from Grace

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Messor, Feb 13, 2002.

  1. Messor Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    I would like to tell you of a Theory of Our Origin that i think brings the theory of Evolution & the theory of Creation togeather in one solid idea. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thank u & enjoy.

    This theory begins with the idea that the big bang theory is just the explotion of God into many seaprate souls. All souls where created at once & is a peice of God (a atom of the body of God).

    When souls were created thay were given free will & all the other attbutes of God ( creative imagination, & the power of manifestation). That imagination was the same as that by which God manifested creation, & souls engaged in a similar pursuit, for their own diversion. We used these powers to project our selfs into material forms primarily for the purpose of play.

    As souls became more involed with material creation two things began to happen. First, thay focused more eneryg twoard the physical surroundings, intermingeld with the evolving matarial on the earth, & took on physical forms. In the process , human bodies evolved, a gradually developed the five senses with which to interact with the physical level of being. Second as thay paid more attention to the physical side thire awareness of the spiritual side gradually dimmed. The souls became hypnotised by the sensory reality of their own bodies & forgot their origin. Thus
    souls became trapped in the body, in the senory existance on the planet. Ever since then souls have been engaged in the process of "seeing it through," learning with interaction with the physical world a way to rediscover & reclaim their heritage as souls of the spiritual realms, as copanions & cocreators with God.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    This theory begins with the idea that the big bang theory is just the explotion of God into many seaprate souls. All souls where created at once & is a peice of God

    Therefore there exists a finite amount of souls. I have some questions.

    Do all souls exist at the same time or are there souls in storage? What happens when the population of humans exceeds the number of existing souls? Are all the souls on Earth or are there others elsewhere in the Universe? Did souls eventually coalesce into galaxies? Do souls have gravity? Are souls expanding with spacetime? What is the temperature of a soul? Will the explosion eventually reverse itself and become a "Big God Crunch?"

    The souls became hypnotised by the sensory reality of their own bodies & forgot their origin. Thus souls became trapped in the body, in the senory existance on the planet.

    I like that. Very original. They had a 'taste for blood' and couldn't go back to being a meaningless infinitesimal part of God. hehe
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Messor Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    First off thank You

    A1)Yes all souls exists at ocne but not all are fully manifested at once We lost are way But after life we get back. If we get back to God we have the chance to lose are way agine hence REINCARNATION.

    A2)This can never be, over time more souls get lost in the physical world this is how the pop increases. Also when we die if we dont find are way we are sent back hence Reincarnation.

    A3) The souls are on earth (meaning land not are planet) trapped in the body. We are bound to our body because we dont know how to get back.

    A4) I will need more time to answer this one. (nice one)

    A5)There was a studie done back in the early 1900's that with the consent of the person the body was weigth at the time of death. At the time of death a 3/4 of a pound was lost in every case. so yes they do have gravity because they have weight

    A6)i once againe need time for this one.

    A7) not sure

    A8)yes in time We will all get back to God.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    Does your theory explain why it took 4 billion years to have human on Earth?
     
  8. Messor Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    in the begining it said that at first thay just made physical material to play with. It was not tell later thay made the body.
    Although that is a large gap still! Thats a good Q.

    (excuse my sppelling just getting it done quick)
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
     
  10. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    From any non-religious source, such as Encyclopedia of Britannica.
     
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
     
  12. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
  13. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    It doesn't matter what their aim is, as long as someone has done the proof, and the proof can be REPEATED as necessary to show the SAME result by anyone else.

    I don't need to carry out the same method. As long as it's possible for me or anyone else to repeat the method and reach the same result, it's acceptable.

    Look around you. All the tech stuffs are based on the same scientific principle and they all worked. How could you not trust others when their work are based on the same principle?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Better yet, if you don't agree with the result, you can do it yourself. No faith needed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2002
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It doesn't matter what their aim is, as long as someone has done the proof, and the proof can be REPEATED as necessary to show the SAME result by anyone else.

    Have you witnessed this proof?
    Can you now explain it to me, in leymens terms?
    If you haven’t and you can’t, then you are taking the word of another person. This means you must trust them, in order to take something so serious at face value.
    If you have witnessed the proof, then you should be able to explain it to anyone of any intellectual background, because it is truth and therefore natural.
    But even then, there has to have been a point where you had faith in the words of such a scientist(s), to come to the point where you are now in your knowledge. The only other alternative is that you were born with it.

    As far as their aim is concerned, I am both surprised and not surprised that you disregard it, what if they are lying, trying to make a name for themselves, then you are being fooled.

    The only way you can make this claim convincing is to explain it in simple terms, if it is true then everything will fall naturaly into place.


    I don't need to carry out the same method. As long as it's possible for me or anyone else to repeat the method and reach the same result, it's acceptable.

    So you haven’t witnessed the evidence, and therefore cannot explain it at any level??
    Then, it is still, largely unknown to you and are therefore blindly following, to some degree.
    It is like me saying, I don’t need to go to China to experience it, I can watch it on the telly, talk to Chinese people, go to a westernised China town, read books on China and her people, eat Chinese food etc.. No doubt these acts will enhance my knowledge, but I will never really know, until I experience it for myself.
    You talk as though you have experienced these claims, but in fact you haven’t, the truth is you believe these claims to be true, first and foremost.
    That is non-different in terms of activity, than someone who believes the scripture. The only difference is the consciousness, one wants to understand the workings of this gross material universe and the other wants to understand the workings of the subtle, spiritual aspect of themselves and the creator of this gross material universe.
    Both start out with nothing but curiosity.


    Look around you. All the tech stuffs are based on the same scientific principle and they all worked.

    Yes, but only because the basic elements are already there in abundance. Even the brain used to put these things together is a piece of hardware which was designed. Without the designer, how would we be able to put these wonderful things together, without have first to create these elements.

    How could you not trust others when their work are based on the same principle?

    You have not yet established a principle, as far as I can see, the principle is already there, it just needed people to put it together.

    [/I]Better yet, if you don't agree with the result, you can do it yourself. No faith needed.[/I]

    Then please tell me how?

    Love

    Jan Ardena.
     
  15. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    Too bad the spritual group loses its curiosity quickly. Not only that, they also tried every effort to supress the curiosity of the other one.

    Should the anti-creator feature be part of the brain design?
    It's interesting that one only accepts the scientific method when it's not against the creator.

    Yes, it's there already. It's called Scientific Method.

    It maybe too long to list here. Contact any of the radiocarbon dating laboratories, they will fill in the details. Here is the link: http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info/#labs

    BTW, I know China very well. Do you know that Chinese has seperate creators for different thing? Do you know that the Chinese creator who seperate heaven and Earth died in the process? Do you know that the creator of Chinese people was a female goddess?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2002
  16. anna f Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    Hi

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    1. 'Hard Science', AFAIK, rejects the concept of "Soul". How would you explain/describe this intangible Soul to a hard-nosed scientist?

    2. Could we compare "Soul" to "Selfawareness"?

    3. Do other animals have a Soul?
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
     
  18. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    Do you understand basic calculas, chemistry, and physics? Do you have a C or better grades in college for these courses? If no, I would say it's still too long to list here.

    This spring, China's latest fashion is "Chinese traditional dress". They are very similar to those worn by world leaders during the APEC meeting last year. For dance craze, Hip-Hop and Parapara are the top ones.
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
     
  20. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    As you wish. The following explains how I know the age of Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Hope you can read through all of them. If you think it's too long, you can try to read the bold face subtitle that interests you the most.

    1. Rocks

    Rocks are made up of many individual crystals, and each crystal is usually made up of at least several different chemical elements such as iron, magnesium, silicon, etc. Most elements in nature are stable and do not change. However, some elements are not completely stable in their natural state. Some atoms eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are many atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms.

    2. Radiometric dating

    Radiometric dating can be compared to an hourglass. When the glass is turned over, sand runs from the top to the bottom. You cannot predict exactly when any one particular grain will get to the bottom, but you can predict from one time to the next how long the whole pile of sand takes to fall. Once all of the sand has fallen out of the top, the hourglass will no longer keep time unless it is turned over again. Similarly, when all the atoms of the radioactive element are gone, the rock will no longer keep time (unless it receives a new batch of radioactive atoms).

    Unlike the hourglass, where the amount of sand falling is constant right up until the end, the number of decays from a fixed number of radioactive atoms decreases as there are fewer atoms left to decay. If it takes a certain length of time for half of the atoms to decay, it will take the same amount of time for half of the remaining atoms, or one-fourth of the original total, to decay. In the next interval, with only one-fourth remaining, only one eighth of the original total will decay. By the time ten of these intervals, or half-lives, have passed, less than one thousandth of the original number of radioactive atoms is left. Also unlike the hourglass, there is no way to change the rate at which radioactive atoms decay on earth. If you shake the hourglass, twirl it, or put it in a rapidly accelerating vehicle, the time it takes the sand to fall will change. But the radioactive atoms used in dating techniques have been subjected to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions without any significant change in their decay rate.

    3. Radiometric clocks

    There are now well over forty different radiometric dating techniques, each based on a different radioactive isotope.

    Radioactive Isotope : half life in years

    Samarium - 147 : 106 billion
    Rubidium-87 : 48.8 billion
    Rhenium-187 : 42 billion
    Lutetium-176 : 38 billion
    Thorium-232 : 14 billion
    Uranium-238 : 4.5 billion
    Potassium-40 : 1.26 billion
    Uranium-235 : 0.7 billion
    Beryllium-10 : 1.52 million
    Chlorine-36 : 300000
    Carbon-14 : 5715

    Notice the large range in the half-lives. Isotopes with long half-lives decay very slowly, and so are useful for dating correspondingly ancient events. Isotopes with shorter half-lives cannot date very ancient events because all of the atoms of the parent isotope would have already decayed away, like an hourglass left sitting with all the sand at the bottom. Isotopes with relatively short half-lives are useful for dating correspondingly shorter intervals, and can usually do so with greater accuracy, just as you would use a stopwatch rather than a grandfather clock to time a 100-meter dash. On the other hand, you would use a calendar, not a clock, to record time intervals of several weeks or more.

    4. Half-lives

    The half-lives have all been measured directly, either by using a radiation detector to count the number of atoms decaying in a given amount of time from a known amount of the parent material, or by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent atoms in a sample that originally consisted completely of parent atoms. Work on radiometric dating first started shortly after the turn of the century, but progress was relatively slow before the late forties. For many of the dating techniques, we now have had fifty years over which to measure and remeasure the half-lives. Very precise counting of the decay events or the daughter atoms can be done, so that while the number of, for example, rhenium-187 atoms decaying in 50 years is a very small fraction of the total, the resulting osmium-187 atoms can be very precisely counted.

    The uncertainties on the half-lives given in the table are all very small. All the half-lives are known to better than plus/minus about two percent except for rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%). There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time, and such a thing is forbidden by the laws of physics.

    5. Age of Earth

    We now turn our attention to what the dating systems tell us about the age of the earth. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the earth's rocks are that old. From satellite data we know that the earth's surface is constantly rearranging itself little by little as earthquakes occur. Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the earth's surface, remelting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion-year-old rocks.

    When scientists began systematically dating meteorites, they learned a very interesting thing: nearly all of the meteorites had practically identical ages, at 4.56 billion years. These meteorites are chips off the asteroids. When the asteroids were formed in space, they cooled relatively quickly (some of them may never have gotten very warm), so all of their rocks were formed within a few million years. The asteroids' rocks have not been remelted ever since, so the ages have generally not been disturbed. Meteorites which show evidence of being from the largest asteroids have slightly younger ages. The moon is larger than the largest asteroid. The oldest rocks we have from the moon do not exceed 4.1 billion years, though a larger sampling might yield some slightly older ages. Most scientists think that all the bodies in the solar system were created about the same time. There is evidence from the uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes that links the earth's age with that of the meteorites. This would make the earth about 4.5-4.6 billion years old.

    Notice one other important detail about radioactive isotopes. Most of the naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes mentioned above have very long half-lives, on the order of billions of years. The only ones with shorter half-lives are those which have a source constantly replenishing them, such as the carbon-14, beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 produced by cosmic rays. We can make hundreds of other radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than a billion years, but they do not occur naturally on earth. Occasionally there is evidence that these isotopes existed at some point in the past, but have since decayed completely away. The longest half-lives of this group of "extinct" radionuclides are close to a hundred million years. Why do we find almost no short-lived radionuclides and so many long-lived ones? This is what one would expect to find if God had created the earth approximately four and a half billion years ago. The earth is old enough that radioactive isotopes with half-lives of up to a hundred million years decayed away, but not so old that radioactive isotopes with half-lives close to a billion years are gone.

    6: Oldest rocks

    Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.

    Technique : Age Range (billion years)
    uranium-lead : 3.60¡À0.05
    lead-lead : 3.56¡À0.10
    lead-lead : 3.74¡À0.12
    lead-lead : 3.62¡À0.13
    rubidium-strontium : 3.64¡À0.06
    rubidium-strontium : 3.62¡À0.14
    rubidium-strontium : 3.67¡À0.09
    rubidium-strontium : 3.66¡À0.10
    rubidium-strontium : 3.61¡À0.22
    rubidium-strontium : 3.56¡À0.14
    lutetium-hafnium : 3.55¡À0.22
    samarium-neodymium : 3.56¡À0.20

    Note that scientists give their results with a stated uncertainty. They take into account all the possible errors and give a range within which they are 95% sure that the actual value lies. The top number, 3.60¡À0.05, refers to the range from 3.55 to 3.65 billion years. The size of this range is every bit as important as the actual number. One number with a small uncertainty range is more accurate than a number with a larger range. For the numbers given above, one can see that all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years as the age of the rock. Several studies also showed that, because of the great ages of these rocks, they have been through several mild metamorphic heating events that disturbed the ages given by potassium-bearing minerals.

    7. Can we trust the dating system

    Some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

    The last two points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so that all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (Remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last 80 years, which is already 4% of the way back to the time of Christ.

    It would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence to conclude that God made everything relatively recently, but with the appearance of great age, just as Genesis 1 and 2 tell of God making Adam as a fully grown man (which implies the appearance of age). That is a philosophical and theological matter which we won't go into here, though it has some shades of the Abraham Lincoln example. We only note here that an apparent old earth is consistent with the great amount of scientific evidence.

    8. Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Techniques

    There are several misconceptions that seem especially prevalent among Christians. Most of these topics are covered in the above discussion, but they are reviewed briefly here for clarity.

    1. Radiometric dating is based on index fossils.

    This is not at all true, though it has actually been suggested. Radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes. These half-lives have been measured over the last 40-80 years. They are not calibrated at all by fossils.

    2. The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate.

    Most of the decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within 2 percent. Uncertainties are only slightly higher on rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%). Such small uncertainties are no reason to dismiss radiometric dating. Whether a rock is 100 million years or 102 million years old does not make a great deal of difference.

    3. A small error in the half-lives leads to a very large error in the date.

    Since exponents are used in the dating equations, it is possible for people to think this might be true, but it is not. If a half-life is off by 2%, it will only lead to a 2% error in the date.

    4. Decay rates can be affected by the physical surroundings.

    This is not true in dating rocks. Radioactive atoms used for dating have been subjected to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions without any measurable change. The only exceptions, which are not relevant to dating rocks, are discussed under the section, "Doubters Still Try," above.

    5. No one has measured the decay rates directly; we only know them from inference.

    Decay rates have been directly measured over the last 50-80 years. In some cases a batch of the pure parent material is weighed and set aside for a long time, and then the resulting daughter material is weighed. In many cases it is easier to detect radioactive decays by the energy burst each decay gives off. For this, a batch of the pure parent material is carefully weighed and then put in front of a Geiger counter which counts the number of decays over a long time.

    6. The decay rates might be slowing down over time, leading to incorrect old dates.

    While we cannot rule out that this could possibly have happened in the past, there is no evidence that anything of the sort has happened in the past century. And the following argument makes this suggestion meaningless in terms of apparent ages: Since the different dating methods are in good agreement, all of the half-lives must have slowed down the same amount together. Such an occurrence would be the same as if time itself slowed down. But everything still appears very old, so why complicate things by making this suggestion in the first place?

    7. There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.

    A good part of this work is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. By comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope, one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there was no parent isotope to decay). Figure 4 and the accompanying explanation tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable.

    8. There are only a few different dating techniques.

    We have listed eleven different radiometric dating techniques and discussed them. These make up only the tip of the iceberg. There are over forty different radiometric dating techniques in use, and there are many other dating techniques making use of rare stable isotopes, yearly variations such as tree rings and ice cores, and other reliable methods.

    9. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the earth was young.

    This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period, although the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically unreactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.

    At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old earth.

    10. Only atheists and liberals are involved in radiometric dating.

    The fact is that there are many Bible-believing Christians who are involved in radiometric dating, and who can see its validity firsthand. Most of the members of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the earth billions, not thousands, of years ago.

    11. Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.

    This is not true at all. The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place. Nearly every college and university library in the country has periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals which give the results of dating studies. The public is usually welcome to (and should!) browse in these libraries. So the results are not hidden; people can go look at the results for themselves. In 1994 alone, at least 450 research articles were published, essentially all favoring a very old earth. Besides the scientific periodicals which carry up-to-date research reports, specific suggestions are given below of books for further reading.
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Thanx 4 post, i will get back 2 U shortly.

    Love

    Jan Ardena.
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Thank you for the reply.

    What you posted, in all honesty ,does not tell me how you know for a fact that the universe is 4.5 billion years old.
    All you have done is show me a method used by so-called scientists, but you still have no way of knowing whether they are telling the truth. You still cannot convey a truth, I still have to make my mind up, therefore it boils down to faith on your part, not fact.
    You also conveniently brushed over the fact that not all scientists agree with the method of radiometric dating, but more importantly, there have been some serious fraudulent cases, using this method.
    Radiometric dating could be correct or it might be incorrect.
    How would you know without previous knowledge?

    As for me personally, I don’t really care how old this universe is, it is neither here not there to me, but if I wanted to know, all the information is contained within vedic literature.
    Maybe you should take some interest, you’d be surprised what you’d find.

    So it appears that on the surface we are in the same position, I cannot physically show you proof and neither can you. I can put forward my understanding, as can you, but we both believe what we believe. We both have faith.

    Personally I prefer to be in my position because I have nothing to lose, if I’m wrong and everything to gain if I’m right. Whereas you have nothing to gain if you are right, and everything to lose if you are wrong. In other words, your religion is based on the darkness of this perishable material nature, whereas mine is based on the light of the eternal spiritual nature.

    I guess it boils to common sense really.

    Love

    Jan Ardena.
     
  23. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    One beauty of science is that if you don't agree, you can repeat the test step by step and point out the incorrectness in each of them. No faith required. Try to do that in religion. Try to list a step by step proof of how to put millions of animal pairs into an Ark.

    And please don't call science a religion. Science accumlates knowledge and corrects itself over time, while religion will stuck with false statements like "fixed Earth" and "stood still Sun" forever.

    BTW, why the "darkness of this perishable material nature" provides you with TV, cell phone, computer, internet, and you don't seem hesitate to use them. Try to build a globle communicatoin network with your "light of the eternal spiritual nature". I don't mind if there is an alternative in case a strong solar wind blows by.
     

Share This Page