Welcome
Login:   Pass:     Register - Forgot Password - Resend Activation

Turkish Class Forums / General/Off-topic

General/Off-topic

Add reply to this discussion
There is no place for God : Stephen Hawking
(38 Messages in 4 pages - View all)
1 2 3 4
1.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 01:40 pm

 

Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

 

The Universe can create itself from nothing, says Prof Hawking

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

 

..But in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

 

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

 

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

=======

How can I explain this to my mom who is fasting at this very moment?

 

catwoman and Daydreamer liked this message
2.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 03:12 pm

You can´t explain it to mum That´s the biggest hoax of religions - their followers do not need explanations or proofs...it´s all based on faith

 

I loved the line about religion in the last episode of The Big Bang Theory

"I don´t object to the concept of a deity, but I´m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance" lol

catwoman and stumpy liked this message
3.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 04:49 pm

I trust science and i believe one day god will be proved by it.

Check this book:  http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283521923&sr=8-1



Edited (9/3/2010) by gokuyum

4.       libralady
5152 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 07:07 pm

 

Quoting gokuyum

I trust science and i believe one day god will be proved by it.

Check this book:  http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283521923&sr=8-1

 

 Until that day, we will grow old...... and many millennia later (if earth exists that long and we have not destroyed it) the same questions will still be asked.  So until then........ {#emotions_dlg.whistle} 

5.       armegon
1872 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 07:22 pm

If God supposed to be bounded by laws of Universe, it is possible but then it is not God since He is bounded so it is better to say like Hawking "There is no place for God"Wink. So you can just believe there is God like Antony Flew...

Quoting gokuyum

I trust science and i believe one day god will be proved by it.

Check this book:  http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283521923&sr=8-1

 

 



Edited (9/3/2010) by armegon

Daydreamer liked this message
6.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 08:51 pm

I´m not 100% sure, we´d need our Bible expert for that, but I think it says somewhere that God cannot be comprehended by humans, it´s beyond our ability to reason. So, should this be true and should God really exist, I don´t think science could ever prove its existence

footnote:

I decided it would be fun to refer to God as "it" because after all there´s no proof it´s a man

7.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 11:21 pm

God can be proved when some scientific researches need a creator to explain some scientific events. No human mind can understand god or find it in universe in a space or time. Because i believe there is nothing except god. We are parts of it but we are not it. This is hard for us to understand fully.



Edited (9/3/2010) by gokuyum
Edited (9/3/2010) by gokuyum

8.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 11:29 pm

 

Quoting libralady

 

 

 Until that day, we will grow old...... and many millennia later (if earth exists that long and we have not destroyed it) the same questions will still be asked.  So until then........ {#emotions_dlg.whistle}

 

 Don´t be so pessimist.Trust science.

9.       oeince
582 posts
 03 Sep 2010 Fri 11:52 pm

there is a saying in Turkey, the rabbit quarrelled with the mountain, the mountain isn´t aware. (tavşan dağa küsmüş dağın haberi yok. better translations are welcomed

If a creation could not find a place for his creator, it doesn´t change anything for the creator. Just the creation and his followers lose.

Whatever is that creations´ name and IQ level is, if he can´t find a place for God, he is ignorant.

10.       alameda
3499 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 12:01 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

I´m not 100% sure, we´d need our Bible expert for that, but I think it says somewhere that God cannot be comprehended by humans, it´s beyond our ability to reason. So, should this be true and should God really exist, I don´t think science could ever prove its existence

footnote:

I decided it would be fun to refer to God as "it" because after all there´s no proof it´s a man

 

A problem with this line of thought is it´s very limited concept of the Divine.

No matter where you face, you face the Divine, Divinity is in you, outide of you, in me and all things and is not limited by earthly rules...like rules regarding gravity or time.

I have to laugh at the narrow mindedness of much Science. Didn´t we learn life could not exist in.....say temperatures above....or below certain certain amounts.....but now we find....life does exist in those previously thought lifeless habitats.

I think the inclination towards belief by all humans is part of the collective wisdom we all share from memories of that other world.

Belief is like a sense, some are born blind, others become blind later in life...some are born with belief....some loose it..........Anyway, believe or don´t believe.

 

 

11.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 01:26 am

Science doesn´t really make hard conclusions on most things. What I like about science is that good research mentions its own limitations, something that religion fails to do. Science doesn´t say "there is no God, I´m 100% sure"... it says "we have not found any proof for God". There is a big difference between the two statements. Saying the second statement is not narrow minded.

12.       armegon
1872 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 01:41 am

 

Quoting gokuyum

God can be proved when some scientific researches need a creator to explain some scientific events.

But this not a proof but a belief,and a need to explain something scientific by the help of a metaphysical Higher Being. You say no human mind can understand God and then you say God can be proved scientifically by human mind, just a contradiction.  I think you should differentiate between, because metaphysical knowledge does not depend on objective criteria but fully personal experience and methodology, there is no static meanings of it.

No human mind can understand god or find it in universe in a space or time. Because i believe there is nothing except god. We are parts of it but we are not it. This is hard for us to understand fully.

It is simply saying that "God did not create anything but Himself" like in Sufism(Vahdeti Vücud or Vahdeti Şuhud). If you still not read, I advice you to read about Ibn Arabi and Imam Rabbani if you are insterested this kind of mystic belief system, though I do not share the same belief, they are experts on this as far as I know... 

 

 

13.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 04:11 pm

I read many books of Ibn Arabi and other sufis. You say there is a contradiction. But there is not. You don´t need to find or show god to prove it. If you need a creator factor when you want to explain some scientific events it means you proved there is a god. I said there is nothing except god. Whole universe is a part of god. But god is more than that. We can´t understand it fully because our brains function according to time and space concepts. God is above time and space.Nobody can define fully what is god. But this doesn´t mean you can´t prove it´s existence.And i believe science will prove it.



Edited (9/4/2010) by gokuyum

14.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 04:45 pm

 

Quoting gokuyum

You say there is a contradiction. But there is not. You don´t need to find or show god to prove it. If you need a creator factor when you want to explain some scientific events it means you proved there is a god.

How can you not see that it´s illogical to assume so? For this theory to be true, we´d have to come to the point where science does not further develop, where everything have been learnt and everything have been discovered. Only then would it be possible to say that solely creationism can explain the universe. And this is impossible. Science will never reach the level where no further research will be possible. If today´s sicentists cannot prove something, it doesn´t mean they won´t be able to do it in 20, 50, 100 years´ time.

Do you realise how long people believed that the Earth is flat? Ha! There still is a group that believes it!

It might be hard for you to imagine that our existence in this world is nothing in terms of time, we´re a new species, still crawling and learning about this planet. It´s naive to assume we´ve got nothing more to learn.

 

15.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 07:34 pm

 I read many books of Ibn Arabi and other sufis. You say there is a contradiction. But there is not. You don´t need to find or show god to prove it. If you need a creator factor when you want to explain some scientific events it means you proved there is a god. I said there is nothing except god. Whole universe is a part of god. But god is more than that. We can´t understand it fully because our brains function according to time and space concepts. God is above time and space.Nobody can define fully what is god. But this doesn´t mean you can´t prove it´s existence.And i believe science will prove it.

Quoting Daydreamer

 

How can you not see that it´s illogical to assume so? For this theory to be true, we´d have to come to the point where science does not further develop, where everything have been learnt and everything have been discovered. Only then would it be possible to say that solely creationism can explain the universe. And this is impossible. Science will never reach the level where no further research will be possible. If today´s sicentists cannot prove something, it doesn´t mean they won´t be able to do it in 20, 50, 100 years´ time.

Do you realise how long people believed that the Earth is flat? Ha! There still is a group that believes it!

It might be hard for you to imagine that our existence in this world is nothing in terms of time, we´re a new species, still crawling and learning about this planet. It´s naive to assume we´ve got nothing more to learn.

 

 

 

16.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 09:28 pm

Gokum, you obviously didn´t understand my point and just repeated your earlier post. I´ll try to break it down for you..

You´re saying:

If something cannot be explained by science, it proves that god exists

I´m saying:

If something cannot be explained by science, it means we don´t have enough knowledge YET. It may be explained in 20 years

 

Alameda

The concept of deity seems more amusing and childish than your dislike for science. You want to hold it against it that it makes mistakes. Aren´t mistakes inevitable part of learning? Once again, we´re a young species and we´re learning fast. We make mistakes along the way but that´s normal. A child´s view of the world differs from an adult´s one. Things that used to be magical are magical no more - that´s because we learn, think and experience. It´s the same with science. One breakthrough enables other ones.

What you call a sense, a human need to have god is nothing but a need to feel safe. And feeling safe is easier when you explain things you don´t understand. Primitive tribesmen called thunders gods. Today we know that it´s not like this. Still, many phenomena are left unexplained, so, people go for the easy "god" explanation.

And, of course, there´s this sociological aspect of religion, unity with a group, family tradition etc

17.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 04 Sep 2010 Sat 11:44 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Gokum, you obviously didn´t understand my point and just repeated your earlier post. I´ll try to break it down for you..

You´re saying:

If something cannot be explained by science, it proves that god exists

I´m saying:

If something cannot be explained by science, it means we don´t have enough knowledge YET. It may be explained in 20 years

 

Alameda

The concept of deity seems more amusing and childish than your dislike for science. You want to hold it against it that it makes mistakes. Aren´t mistakes inevitable part of learning? Once again, we´re a young species and we´re learning fast. We make mistakes along the way but that´s normal. A child´s view of the world differs from an adult´s one. Things that used to be magical are magical no more - that´s because we learn, think and experience. It´s the same with science. One breakthrough enables other ones.

What you call a sense, a human need to have god is nothing but a need to feel safe. And feeling safe is easier when you explain things you don´t understand. Primitive tribesmen called thunders gods. Today we know that it´s not like this. Still, many phenomena are left unexplained, so, people go for the easy "god" explanation.

And, of course, there´s this sociological aspect of religion, unity with a group, family tradition etc

 

 I am saying if you need a creator factor to explain a scientific event it means god is proved. This is very different from what you say. Because in my situation science would say that some phenomenons can be explained by a creator factor so these phenomenons are not incomprehensible from now on. It would say we can understand these phenomenons if we include creator factor into our calculations. So when a creator factor makes some phenomenon understandable for us, we can say god is proved. As you know there are a priori principles in science.  Scientists accept these a priori principle without proving them. Because these a priori principles are needed to make some calculations. Science need a logical base to form its theories. For example science accept universe has always existed. This is a logical inference. But science can not prove it with solid evidence. Maybe it is right maybe wrong but science needs this a priori principle. Some day maybe god´s existence will be an a priori principle for science. You can´t know this. You have to wait and see.



Edited (9/4/2010) by gokuyum

18.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 12:15 am

I still disagree. If scientists assume creation as the only possible explanation to certain phenomena, it means they consider their theories proven beyond doubt. And this is just wishful thinking. Nobody can guarantee that

a) creationism in this case will not be excluded in the future

b) all scientists will agree

Resorting to creationism is merely admiting that you have no idea how something works and you lack faith that it will ever be explained Knowing our smart species, nothing is impossible

19.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 12:16 am

.



Edited (9/5/2010) by Daydreamer [double post]

20.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 12:25 am

I respect your ideas. Lets wait and see.

Daydreamer liked this message
21.       alameda
3499 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 06:47 am

 

Quoting Daydreamer

 

Alameda

The concept of deity seems more amusing and childish than your dislike for science. You want to hold it against it that it makes mistakes. Aren´t mistakes inevitable part of learning? Once again, we´re a young species and we´re learning fast. We make mistakes along the way but that´s normal. A child´s view of the world differs from an adult´s one. Things that used to be magical are magical no more - that´s because we learn, think and experience. It´s the same with science. One breakthrough enables other ones.

What you call a sense, a human need to have god is nothing but a need to feel safe. And feeling safe is easier when you explain things you don´t understand. Primitive tribesmen called thunders gods. Today we know that it´s not like this. Still, many phenomena are left unexplained, so, people go for the easy "god" explanation.

And, of course, there´s this sociological aspect of religion, unity with a group, family tradition etc

 

Daydreamer....where did you ever get the idea I hate science? In fact, I love science in the purest interpretation of the word, that is:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.

I prefer to believe in a Higher Power, I believe in the interconnectdness of all, you do not. In our live´s journey, we have come to different conclusions. I have gone through the evolution of believing, not believing, maybe believing to believing. In other words, I went through the ...."First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is" ....journey....I am not a simple minded uneducated dolt, as you seem to infer those who have belief are. In the contrary, I am very well educated, have a critical mind, and based on my analysis of the subject, with my free choice, I chose to believe.

 



Edited (9/5/2010) by alameda [punctuation]

22.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 02:24 pm

I´m sorry Alameda if you inferred that I consider you simple minded, uneducated or having no critical mind. That was not my point. What I referred to was this statement:

"I have to laugh at the narrow mindedness of much Science. Didn´t we learn life could not exist in.....say temperatures above....or below certain certain amounts.....but now we find....life does exist in those previously thought lifeless habitats."

 

It didn´t really came across as constructive criticism of science, which is still in development. And it means it makes mistakes all along Narrow mindedness would mean sticking to a theory no matter what and never admiting it was wrong. That´s actually something that is a characteristics of religion

Of course everything is a matter of choice - whether or not you choose to believe in god, is not really my business. I cannot accept that events described in one old book are true only because the book says so. Still, if this much is enough to convince you, that´s your thing.

23.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 02:52 pm

Actually, a few years ago there was this campaign (there is probably no god):

But, i think the time has come to get rid of the word ´probably´ as far as science is concerned.. 

I still dont understand people why they are trying to include the science into a dogma like religion belief..

Religions are not compatible with science..

They never were and they will never be..

There is a saying in Turkish ´you can not say "I would like to have a seat behind the driver but not over the wheel"´.

 

Tulip and Daydreamer liked this message
24.       vineyards
1954 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 03:32 pm

Mansur Al Hallaj pondered all his life about the nature of God and then spelled out this phrase: "Ana´l Hakk". It translates into English as "I am God." This tenth century philosopher had probably come to the verdict that whatever that exists in the universe is inseperable from God and we are all small pieces of it. The Abbaside rule of the age considered this a threat to the unity of their state and executed Al Hallaj before the public after cutting off his arms and legs.

Galileo Galilei was a 17th century astronomer, physicist, mathematician and a general scientist. Stephan Hawking considers him as the person who is responsible for the birth of modern science. Galileo was a keen observer of the celestial bodies and have kept track of their motions relative to one another. Based on his studies he concluded that the earth was not the center of the universe. Instead it circled around the sun. An inquisition court decided that Gelileo´s statement was in violation of the religious teachings which held it that the Earth was motionless and all else was circling around it. He was condemned to life imprisonment and was denied of a chance to write any further books.

Stephan Hawking is probably the most prominent theoratical physicist. He is so intelligent, he could actually write a top seller "A Brief History of The Universe" through which he could reach general public and get them to learn about this difficult branch of science. Hawking is considered one of the most intelligent persons ever lived. He has recently made a statement saying there is no place for God and that the universe might come into being all by itself.

It may be difficult or even impossible to understand God. I know it is difficult to understand Hawking too. Nevertheless, understanding Hawking must be millions of times easier. It takes reading and gaining knowledge. If you don´t have better words to say, let the wise man speak. He probably knows much better than us, the ignorant ones.



Edited (9/5/2010) by vineyards
Edited (9/5/2010) by vineyards

25.       armegon
1872 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 04:09 pm

I agree. Obviously with a creator factor there should be new form of science consists of not only theoritical physical chemical laws but also metaphysics which is not a good mixture just because all statements that go beyond the empirical world called metaphysics and metaphysics cannot prove anything in a certain way. So there can be always counter statements or theories which is physical, metaphysical or both. Science cannot prove that you love your kids, it can only guess maybe with a very scientific manner, and by the help of the human science you can only guess there is God which is belief, in both you can be wrong, there is nothing called Absolute science but human science and human being has an ability to err.

Quoting Daydreamer

I still disagree. If scientists assume creation as the only possible explanation to certain phenomena, it means they consider their theories proven beyond doubt. And this is just wishful thinking. Nobody can guarantee that

a) creationism in this case will not be excluded in the future

b) all scientists will agree

Resorting to creationism is merely admiting that you have no idea how something works and you lack faith that it will ever be explained Knowing our smart species, nothing is impossible

 

 

26.       armegon
1872 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 04:17 pm

"Görünce Rabbimi gönül gözü ile sordum: ´Kimsin Sen?´ Dedi:´Senim Ben´.." (Hallacı Mansur)

Quoting vineyards

Mansur Al Hallaj pondered all his life about the nature of God and then spelled out this phrase: "Ana´l Hakk". It translates into English as "I am God." 



Edited (9/5/2010) by armegon

27.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 05:34 pm

       I was an agnostic till two weeks ago. I have never become an atheist because i have a very skeptic nature. I thought atheism as a belief. Because you can´t decide about anything you don´t have proof. You can only say i don´t have any proof.I have always believed if there is a god this god must be different from what holly books tell. Because when i read holly books i realized the God they tell is like a human. I couldn´t accept such a god. But when i read sufis´ works i saw they tell same God very differently. I thought they were comforting themselves. I always liked sufis but i never believed them.

 

     I was having a great joy when i was reading atheist authors books. Everything they say was absolutely true for me. All of my favorite authors were atheist or agnostic. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Sade, Cioran, Caraco and the others. I liked them because they were criticizing human God who is told in the holly books. But i kept reading books about God. Two weeks ago i read a book which tells prophet´s lives. The author´s approach to god was very different. He was telling all the holy books have a heavy symbolism and God is not like a human. I found new books about this matter. And one of these books convinced me fully. And i started to read holly books from a different perspective. And this time they seemed me very meaningful.

 

     As you see i was an agnostic like some of you. But my skeptic nature always forced me to learn more. I have still this nature. And i keep learning new things. I advice you the same. Don´t be prejudiced, be open to new and different ideas. Always read the two side´s books about a matter and then decide.

 

 

28.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 05:52 pm

See, Gokuyum, the problem with philosophy is that it is not scientific, ie it´s impossible to prove it. Hence hundreds of schools, ideas and schools. Philosophy is nothing but sharing your point of view. Some will find it logical, others will challenge it and the rest will not give a rat´s tutu about it.

I remember my philosophy classes at the uni and how conceited our lecturer was. During the first class he just gave us a scournful look, puffed his cheeks and mumbled "philologists...pffff...you´re nothing! You wouldn´t even be able to prove that you exist"

I could never see what he thought made him so special - reading other people´s books? Writing his own? Does it all make any of them right? They´re all but speculations

29.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 06:26 pm

Philosophy is as important as science for me. Because without philosophy science would never consider ethical problems. What was the benefit of atom bomb for humanity that science created? Nothing. Science can lose it´s way without philosophy. You can see some of the great scientist´s are also philosophers. Why? Because they sometimes also criticize science. You can´t criticize science or anything without philosophy.

30.       thehandsom
7403 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 08:29 pm

When Alexander the great once said  ´Ohhh deus. Vos es sic magnus´, which can be translated into English as ´Ohhh God, you are so big´, he would not have imagined, thousands of years later, those words would be quoted in a language learning website nor he knew anything about the structure of DNA or how stars are formed. would he say the same thing if he had any knowledge? Possibly would, as he was not talking about the god when he uttered those words (if he ever said them!!)..

Actually, what we know today is not leaving any gap for God to be squeezed anymore as far as the science concerned..

We know that there was no creation because ´what we know´, not ´what don´t know´..

We know DNA, we know how life forms are evolved, we know how planets are formed, we have strong ideas /theories about big bangs etc.. 

Basically, science will never ever or can never ever prove the the existence of God(s). 

All those people said this and that etc many many moons ago when they had no idea about what we know today. They are not relevant with today´s philosophy, today´s life and no ethical problems were answered by any of the religions in my view..

I think in the end, if people show more courage and play less in the  spiritual safe lounge of ´there is a god club´, will be better..

All those indoctrination, generations after generations, make people ´leaving their options open´.. They are still scared to come out fully.. 

I think that is the reason why we hear, ´I am fond of God but not religion´.. ´I am waiting for religion to prove there is one´ etc..



Edited (9/5/2010) by thehandsom

31.       gokuyum
5050 posts
 05 Sep 2010 Sun 08:40 pm

Reasonable ideas. But lets wait and see. Nothing always seems like what it is.

32.       turkishcobra
607 posts
 06 Sep 2010 Mon 02:32 am

 

 



Edited (9/6/2010) by turkishcobra

33.       libralady
5152 posts
 09 Sep 2010 Thu 11:09 pm

 

Quoting gokuyum

 

 

 Don´t be so pessimist.Trust science.

 

 I do trust science, and I am waiting for it to prove to me there is a God, in the meantime, I believe there is no God!  And I am a "glass half full" sort of person not a "glass half empty" sort. {#emotions_dlg.angel}

34.       TheAenigma
5001 posts
 09 Sep 2010 Thu 11:11 pm

 

Quoting thehandsom

 

Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

 

The Universe can create itself from nothing, says Prof Hawking

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

 

..But in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

 

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

 

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

=======

How can I explain this to my mom who is fasting at this very moment?

 

 

I have really enjoyed his series of programmes so far - particularly the one about faith schools.  I can´t help sharing his view on all religions...

35.       libralady
5152 posts
 09 Sep 2010 Thu 11:16 pm

 

Quoting TheAenigma

 

 

I have really enjoyed his series of programmes so far - particularly the one about faith schools.  I can´t help sharing his view on all religions...

 

 Don´t you mean Richard Dawkins not Stephen Hawkins? {#emotions_dlg.unsure}

 

36.       TheAenigma
5001 posts
 09 Sep 2010 Thu 11:17 pm

 

Quoting libralady

 

 

 Don´t you mean Richard Dawkins not Stephen Hawkins? {#emotions_dlg.unsure}

 

 

Hahahahahaha yes I do!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know how many times I make that mistake?  The worst part is, there is a BIG difference

 

I still agree with Stephen Hawkins too



Edited (9/9/2010) by TheAenigma

37.       libralady
5152 posts
 09 Sep 2010 Thu 11:21 pm

 

Quoting TheAenigma

 

 

Hahahahahaha yes I do!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know how many times I make that mistake?  The worst part is, there is a BIG difference

 

 

 But Dawkins rhymes with Hawkins.... perhaps inspiration for your limerick? {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

38.       TheAenigma
5001 posts
 09 Sep 2010 Thu 11:25 pm

 

Quoting libralady

 

 

 

 But Dawkins rhymes with Hawkins.... perhaps inspiration for your limerick? {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

 

Genius!

(38 Messages in 4 pages - View all)
1 2 3 4
Add reply to this discussion




Turkish Dictionary
Turkish Chat
Open mini chat
New in Forums
Why yer gördüm but yeri geziyorum
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, makes perfect sense!
Etmeyi vs etmek
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much!
Görülmez vs görünmiyor
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, very well explained!
Içeri and içeriye
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much for the detailed ...
Present continous tense
HaydiDeer: Got it, thank you!
Hic vs herhangi, degil vs yok
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much!
Rize Artvin Airport Transfer - Rize Tours
rizetours: Dear Guest; In order to make your Black Sea trip more enjoyable, our c...
What does \"kabul ettiğini\" mean?
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much for the detailed ...
Kimse vs biri (anyone)
HaydiDeer: Thank you!
Random Pictures of Turkey
Most liked
Major Vowel Harmony

Turkish lesson by admin
Level: beginner
Introduction

Turkish lesson by admin
Level: beginner