Conquer Club

Up to your old weak tricks again, hey nappy? You left out the post in between the two you quoted, trying to leave the false impression that I was responding to widowmaker. Actually, I was agreeing with heavycola. Shame on you nappy.

mpjh wrote:Up to your old weak tricks again, hey nappy? You left out the post in between the two you quoted, trying to leave the false impression that I was responding to widowmaker. Actually, I was agreeing with heavycola. Shame on you nappy.

Heavycola, who was in fact, responding to widowmaker...

Nice try, but unlucky.

WidowMakers wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Except that believing everything came strictly from chance is a minority view, even among atheistic Evolutionists ... and is definitely not what Christians who accept Evolution believe. That is part of why I say you don't really know current Evolutionary theory.

Could you please point me towards a website that lists in detail teh current evolutionary theory you are discussing. Everything I seem to find states that the universe came from nothing, that life came from non life, that simple life mutated into more complex life and eventually that made us (and everything else)

WM

If you page up a bit, there IS a link to at least one person who has answered some of the most basic challenges posed by the Creation Science Institute. For example, the issue of "missing" transition fossils. The stream processes stuff is my field ... I am putting myself forward as an expert, but there are references... albiet NOT on the internet. And, I have to say it is often fairly wieldly to weed through it all. You are asking for me to condense over 20 years of education in a few short sentences. This is about impossible. The most I can do is get to some basic roots of divergence and try to go from there/counter a few basic concepts you put forward.

There IS no one site ... to my knowledge, and for some very good reasons.


1. Most of this research was conducted LONG before the internet. Pure Science organizations generally don't have any spare funds. Posting information that is not considered controversial (except among a very small group of conservative Christians) is not as high a priority as posting more recent, truly earth-shattering information.

2. The internet lends itself mostly to controversial topics. It is much more difficult to find non-controversial stuff. This means that it is pretty easy to find stuff about Creationism, but not about Evolution, precisely because Evolution is NOT considered controversial.

3. When pure scientist DO publish, it is often in non-public forums. Partly this is just lack of funding. Partly, it these documents are very difficult to read and folks have been burned by individuals taking excerpts out of context, not reading the entire document or just not having the understanding to know what they are reading. A classic example is some of the early Global Warming information. One argument was always that if there was a global change, it was only 1/2 degree (30 years ago, that is). HOWEVER, a climatologist /oceanographer will say that 1/2 a degree on a global scale is a HUGE change. All it takes to reverse the Jet stream, for example is 1 degree. Similarly, to take another mass misunderstanding, you hear a lot of folks citing vaccination death rates. It IS true that roughly 1 in 14,000 children experience a very serious side effect from a measles vaccination... even death. HOWEVER, it is also true that 1 in 250 kids DIE from measles! Folks forget this because so many other kids are vaccinated that the chance they will be exposed to measles has been pretty slim. HOWEVER, with more and more people not vaccinating their kids, measles is emerging again and kids are dying from it again. Worse, there are some kids who never could be vaccinated -- those on chemotherapy, some with certian allergies, etc. So, by not vaccinating your child, those "intelligent and informed people" are not only endangering their child, but other children who have to depend upon all other children being vaccinated to stay safe themselves. (I am not saying you are against vaccinations, just showing how partial information can be more harmful and more deceptive at times than no information at all).

in addition:

A lot of what you out forward makes such basic, fundamental errors that even addressing your "point" is just impossible. For example, You cite again and again the improbability of "macroevolution" purely by natural selection. However, no modern scientist actually says this is what happened. Yes, initially Darwin did think that might be the case, but he was just wrong in that. Similarly, it is more accurate to say "survival of the lucky", not "survival of the fittest". You might be the "biggest, baddest" buck around, but if you get hit by a car (or a hunter's bullet or simply isolated by a landslide or flood) before you can mate, your genes will no be passed along. Also, the one buck might well be strongest and out-compete the other bucks when there is plenty of food, but die when food is more limited ... etc. STILL, thought Darwin got part of it wrong, he is still celebrated because he was the "first" to put together and PUBLISH (not necessarily to think of these ideas, but to publish them) the concept of gradual change. For the time, it was phenomenal. He did so without knowledge of Genetics, gene recombination, plate Techtonics, etc. Naturally, some of his thoughts were just wrong. .. that is why they are theories and not facts.

For me, specifically, a key point is that I absolutely DO acknowledge God and the Bible. So, any argument you put forward that "God must exist" .. well, yes... not a point of disagreement.

WidowMakers wrote:
Plus too many times people say "well the Big Bang is not part of evolution so we are not going to talk about it. We only want to talk about Mutations or radiometric dating, etc..." But the truth is that all areas need to be talked about.

Why? It is not anything that can be proven either way. Even the most ardant supporter of the Big Bang Theory will admit it is basically speculation. Speculation based on some evidence, but far from a full and unquestionable answer.

It is similar to the issue of "does God exist". We can talk about it, but not prove anything either way ... it is a matter of belief. Maybe some day it will be proven, but not now.

Plus too many times peopel would look at a minute area and say "BAM! This proves evolution." But they ignored the larger implications of that "proof" and did not look at the whole picture.Then all those areas need to be looked at together as then we see what makes more logical sense.

Actually, NO scientist will say that Evolution ... big "E", the scientific theory, is proven. If it were, it would be fact, not theory.

HOWEVER, that it is theory does not mean that any and all competing theories are equally viable. Evolution does answer the evidence that is available.

Now, "evolution" ... small "e", IS fact, as is the concept of Natural Selection. Things DO change over time in various ways. Things do adapt gradually to their environment. These things are facts and CAN be proven. But, they are not the only factors involved in Evolution.

What does science actually tell us.
And what do we MAKE science say to support out ideas.

True, but, sorry, a lot of what you put forward is not really science. Sorry, but that is the truth. I would like to pin point some exact divergences.. but that requires looking at certain points, not the whole you have presented.

I am fully willing to take part in this debate. Now cannot guarantee that i can respond on a daily or weekly basis (especially depending on the topic and scope of each particular area of discussion) But I will continue as long as a TRUE debate takes place.

Agreed, however, you put forward so many divergent ideas and address topic from so many fields of science that I doubt any one person can really and truly answer them all. Nor is it really necessary.

This is actually a big point of misunderstanding for Creationists. NO one is claiming that Evolution (the theory) has "all the answers" or "cannot be wrong". Nor is it a theory that was just put out and then is unable to change. ALL science changes. We get new information and change our view. This is a fundamental differance between the scientific approach and the Scientific Creationist approach. Science starts out with, basically, "everything" being possible. Scientists put forward ideas, then try to disprove them (NOT prove them!!!). Only when something is unable to be disproven again and again, is it finally accepted as a real possibility. Understand, in some cases this is complicated. In other cases quick. There are ALWAYS those going back and trying to challenge even the most "basic" and fundamental theories and facts. This is how science works. So, that some folks want to say Evolution is wrong ... is not a problem ... at ALL!

The problem comes when those folks put forward evidence that either is misunderstood, plain false or irrelevant.

How does this happen? Bias. EVERYONE is biased to an extent. It is plain and simply part of being human. However, scientists spend years learning procedures and processes to get around that bias. We learn good sampling techniques, use specific procedures known to give the most empirical results possible, AND subject studies to peer review (because, let's face it, can the average person really understand a treatise on nuclear energy??). Even so, bias exists. Scientists know this. It is known, for example that scientists who work for a company -- say Dupont, are less likely to publish studies highly critical of that company. Why? Are they lying? Sometimes .. absolutely, but usually not. Begin with the company is more likely to fund research for which they see a benefit (including studies that are required). But, even though scientists try to use the most unbiased procedures, the most empirical evidence possible, there is still always an element of subjectivity. Take "outlyers". What do you do when you get one piece of data out of 30 that does not fit the pattern. Usually you disgard it. Most likely there was some problem. BUT, sometimes those outlyers are where the most phenomenal insights begin. For example, it is said that Pastuer discovered penicilin by accident. He was trying to grow mold and one of his samples became contaminated. How many other scientists saw that and simply pitched the sample? Pasteur said "aha" (at least, that is the story..) and revolutionized medicine. However, if you are working under pressure to put forward results, you may not have the time or money to pursue those strange anomolies.

Then there is another kind of bias. The veliger larva is a juvenile form of crabs. How did it manage to get its own name? Because for years and years the experts in crab research considered these things parasites to crabs. There was, reportedly, a younger scientist who felt these were actually juvenile crab. However, the prominant scientist had such power that this younger scientist was not able to get his research recognized until that older scientist had retired. Why? Was that older scientist an evil guy? No, he just had so much vested in that one result that he was plain incapable of admitting fault. All he had at stake was his scientific reputation. How much greater the pressure when it is religion at stake.

When you START with the assumption that you already "know" the "truth", and go out of your way to seek out a particular kind of data only, and disgard anything that disagrees... yes, you will "prove" your case. BUT, it is not really science.

As a point in fact, Creation Science has had to go through quite a few changes because many of the very initial assumptions just could not be accepted by anyone. Dinosaurs, for example. Thirty years ago, parents taught their kids that dinosaurs were "pretend". They were not mentioned in the Bible, so "could not have existed". I saw publications asserting that fossils were "put there by the devil to confuse". It was not long before this changed to the current assertion that dinosaurs were killed in the flood.

3) NO adding questions not relevant to the current issue

yes, but you have to be careful that you are not simply framing the debate to only one answer. For example-- you may not like the fact that I am a Christian and still believe Evolution, but I am... and am EXTREMELY offended, will challenge any assertion you try to make that "only nonChristians believe Evolution". It is simply not true!

WidowMakers wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:As a point in fact MOST Christians believe the Bible AND science ...

This I think is the fairer statement.

I agree as well. I really want to stress the fact that I don't think science is wrong. I am a Mechanical engineer. I love the discovery channel (except the evolution stuff) science has helped man in countless ways. So don't think I am tryign to say that we need to stop taking our kids science.

I am saying that science is wrong when it comes to theories that we all came from nothing and have no purpose (which is what evolution is saying in general).
Especially when it is argued as FACT in spite of the lack of evidence and logical arguments.

WM

It would be nice if this were true, but the reality is that, while Evolution (big "E") might be wrong, Creationism -- as you put forward and as is put forward by the Creation Science institute is completely inconsistant with most of Biology, Geology, Astronomy and many other sciences.

However, we can debate that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:As a point in fact MOST Christians believe the Bible AND science ...

This I think is the fairer statement.

I agree as well. I really want to stress the fact that I don't think science is wrong. I am a Mechanical engineer. I love the discovery channel (except the evolution stuff) science has helped man in countless ways. So don't think I am tryign to say that we need to stop taking our kids science.

I am saying that science is wrong when it comes to theories that we all came from nothing and have no purpose (which is what evolution is saying in general).
Especially when it is argued as FACT in spite of the lack of evidence and logical arguments.

WM

It would be nice if this were true, but the reality is that, while Evolution (big "E") might be wrong, Creationism -- as you put forward and as is put forward by the Creation Science institute is completely inconsistant with most of Biology, Geology, Astronomy and many other sciences.

However, we can debate that.

Which we will

Haha, I've not been on here for months & this thread is STILL on the first page.


Tell you what, let's not compare each view. Let's look at creationism on it's own. I'm not going to explain why - if you want to know do a bit of research - but IF creationism was true, that would contradict pretty much everything we know today about physics, chemistry and biology. Soooooooo .... which do you trust - a book of dubious origins OR the whole of modern science?

Hmmmmmm......tricky.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Haha, I've not been on here for months & this thread is STILL on the first page.


Tell you what, let's not compare each view. Let's look at creationism on it's own. I'm not going to explain why - if you want to know do a bit of research - but IF creationism was true, that would contradict pretty much everything we know today about physics, chemistry and biology. Soooooooo .... which do you trust - a book of dubious origins OR the whole of modern science?

Hmmmmmm......tricky.

But it does not contraction science. The "science" you speak of has sooooo many holes and does not even agree with itself. But I know you will disagree with my last statement so please show me all of the things from science that creation contradicts. List them and show the PROOF that they are fact. Then I will show why they are not really true scientific facts that discount creation.

FYI We will restart this over in the user group the Real University. I want to start it over and get a more focused setup to keep things in line and make sure we are not all over the place. We can still ocver all topics but in a more organized and orderly fashion.

Just to let everyone know it is a usergroup setup to debate and keep things on track. There have been many times over this thread that we have strayed off topic and there has also been spam and other post not even related. The user group is designed to keep that at a minimum. To get into the group please PM [player]PLAYER57832[/player]. He will add you and you can join in this debate (once it gets restarted over there) and many others.

Thanks for everyone's patience with me and the discussion. I enjoy it and hope you do too (even though we do disagree, it is fun to see what and why people think the way they do)
WM

You know what interests me the most?
the fact is right now (im an evolutionist) i think that the people who believe that god created everything is absolutely insane, and they are ignorant to believe that. (well thats an exaggeration i have a lot of respect for both sides)
well that doesnt interest me but the part that does, is that i know you guys think the exact same thing of me. idk i like to understand ppl, something that excites me.

but do u guys feel the same way?

(for the record i dont mean to insult either side i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents as i have been following this debate.)

You gotta be kidding me !!

Do people actually debate this? Didn't religion/god has hidden behind faith to never come to light again?

hahahaha !! hahahahahahaha !!!

Save me Tom Cruise !!!

a.sub wrote:You know what interests me the most?
the fact is right now (im an evolutionist) i think that the people who believe that god created everything is absolutely insane, and they are ignorant to believe that. (well thats an exaggeration i have a lot of respect for both sides)
well that doesnt interest me but the part that does, is that i know you guys think the exact same thing of me. idk i like to understand ppl, something that excites me.

but do u guys feel the same way?

(for the record i dont mean to insult either side i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents as i have been following this debate.)

Yes I feel teh same way. FYI I think that people who believe in evolution are close minded and have ignored the actual facts of science to mask the real truth that God exists and that they will do anything to justify to themselves (and everyone else) why that is. I think they are not logical and hide behind their science "facts" (I say facts becuase they are not really facts just hypothesis with TONS of holes and contradictions) to "prove" they are right.

Again no offense to anyone either. As you can see from my posts I have never tried to attack anyone personally. I just want to point out issues with the "science" of evolution and show where it is wrong and cannot be used to explain the universe and life in it. Just as you are trying to use science to point out why creation is wrong as well. Someone is wrong. My goal was to properly form up a debate in this thread. I really fell apart and got to broad to fast and That was my fault.

Like I said in the post above, this topic will return and get started again in the Real University user group. There it can be managed better and more focused.

I know I keep saying this but thanks for everyone who is genuinely contributing to the discussion.
WM

nietzsche wrote:You gotta be kidding me !!

Do people actually debate this? Didn't religion/god has hidden behind faith to never come to light again?

hahahaha !! hahahahahahaha !!!

Save me Tom Cruise !!!

Then if you don't believe in creation (which is perfectly fine and your choice), why do you believe in evolution? The answer cannot be "because creation is wrong". The answer needs to be "because evolution is true". Then I ask you to show me why you believe.

-Big Bang- There was nothing and then there was something (not logical. 1st law prevents naturalistic creation or destruction of matter. No explanation. And you cannot just use quantum physics becaue there is still no proof of that. it is just a mathematical formula to try and justify something from nothing.)
-Formation of stars and planets-Planets and moons are made of completely different materials and move in completely different orbits or rotations. How? Why? Only theories that cannot hold water as to how these things happened. (So the moon and earth crashed into each other. The earth was spun out of the sun, The sun slowly collapsed from gas. Again all theories and not observed or proven. Just speculation and not science.
-Formation of life from nonlife- How? Where? When? This theory, with years of labor and intelligent of man looking over it in laboratories with TONS of equipment and all scientific tools to use, and nothing. We can't create life. We can't even properly create the things that create life without intelligent manipulation of the outcome (Miller-Urey_experiment does not prove anything if you actually look at the facts)
-The degradation of all systems based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics - This applies to information, structures and energy. All of which we see following these laws. Genetic information is getting more disrupted. Mutations hurts MUCH MUCH more than they help the overall system. All of the stars are losing useful energy to the universe and space. The energy is in turn used up by less that 100% efficient plants and animals. The useful energy of the universe is going away. This is consistent with the 2nd law. But for some reason in the past, teh 2nd law did not apply and things actually got more ordered from chaos and randomness (again not logical) . The only reason life, for a short period of time, does get more complex and organized is that there is a set of instructions (DNA) that explain how that happened.
-DNA- Where did this come from? Where did a HUGE set of orderly plans for life come from? How is the code interpreted. You cannot have a language and the code to decode it arise at the same time by chance and have it be explainable. It makes no sense? Does it.
-Macro evolution- The thought that little changes over a million years results in new creatures or species have never been seen. Evolutionists will say because it takes so long. Well if it takes so long how can you be sure it happens. The answer will be because we are here it must have happened.. But that uses the assumption that we DID evolve. It does not look at the facts and ask "can this really happen"?

These are just a few things that need to be looked at. You need to ask yourself if these make sense. Can these things happen in the natural world all by themselves? Throw away your bias and really look a the science behind it. All of these issues above are either explained away by theories that contradict current know laws of nature or just accepted even though there is no proof just because a persons' bias is considered fact.

One cannot look at a particular area and say "creation/evolution must be true beucase I see....."
A person needs to look at each area and say "what do I see"?
Then that observation needs to be compared to other ares of science together to form an overall model of what has taken place. Do not use theories or science to twist and bend your bias. Make sure they all agree with each other.

Know why you believe and really understand you point of view and be able to explain it all to anyone who comes calling.
And don't fit the "facts" to suit your opinion.
Look at the FACTS and see where they lead you.

WM

First of all, not all can be understood. Read Kant. What makes you think that our epistemological capacity is universal and we can understand everything that is and has been and will be? Even if we never understand anything with science, that doesn't mean there must be a god.

Second, in the case of the big bang, before the actual explosion we can't know anything since the laws of physics we know today don't apply there. See, there was so much matter and energy in so little space that everything was together therefore not even quantom mechanics can explain it.

Evolution has been proven, and proven and proven a million times, it's a strong theory, and even if Descartes' evil demon was fooling us all to make us believe in the theory of evolution, creationism wouldn't be the real answer.

The answer to this lies within faith. I have no trouble with people with faith, my whole family is catholic, I sometimes go to church because if my grand ma dies I have to pay my respect to my mother. The problem comes when people tries to bring religion and faith to replace science.

Nietzsche (the real philosopher) showed us that we first "Will" something, that is, want something, believe something, then we find reasons to it. Life, it's true, is full of pain and some of the things we have to face are fearsome, and there are those who want to believe that there's something else taking care of them, or there's some reward. That's fine with me. From there to try to disprove evolution there's a long way.


What bothers me is that you guys put creatonism and Evolution in a same sentence as if they were alike.

WidowMakers wrote:

a.sub wrote:You know what interests me the most?
the fact is right now (im an evolutionist) i think that the people who believe that god created everything is absolutely insane, and they are ignorant to believe that. (well thats an exaggeration i have a lot of respect for both sides)
well that doesnt interest me but the part that does, is that i know you guys think the exact same thing of me. idk i like to understand ppl, something that excites me.

but do u guys feel the same way?

(for the record i dont mean to insult either side i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents as i have been following this debate.)

Yes I feel teh same way. FYI I think that people who believe in evolution are close minded and have ignored the actual facts of science to mask the real truth that God exists and that they will do anything to justify to themselves (and everyone else) why that is. I think they are not logical and hide behind their science "facts" (I say facts becuase they are not really facts just hypothesis with TONS of holes and contradictions) to "prove" they are right.

Again no offense to anyone either. As you can see from my posts I have never tried to attack anyone personally. I just want to point out issues with the "science" of evolution and show where it is wrong and cannot be used to explain the universe and life in it. Just as you are trying to use science to point out why creation is wrong as well. Someone is wrong. My goal was to properly form up a debate in this thread. I really fell apart and got to broad to fast and That was my fault.

Like I said in the post above, this topic will return and get started again in the Real University user group. There it can be managed better and more focused.

I know I keep saying this but thanks for everyone who is genuinely contributing to the discussion.
WM

Incredible

WidowMakers wrote:

a.sub wrote:You know what interests me the most?
the fact is right now (im an evolutionist) i think that the people who believe that god created everything is absolutely insane, and they are ignorant to believe that. (well thats an exaggeration i have a lot of respect for both sides)
well that doesnt interest me but the part that does, is that i know you guys think the exact same thing of me. idk i like to understand ppl, something that excites me.

but do u guys feel the same way?

(for the record i dont mean to insult either side i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents as i have been following this debate.)

Yes I feel teh same way. FYI I think that people who believe in evolution are close minded and have ignored the actual facts of science to mask the real truth that God exists and that they will do anything to justify to themselves (and everyone else) why that is. I think they are not logical and hide behind their science "facts" (I say facts becuase they are not really facts just hypothesis with TONS of holes and contradictions) to "prove" they are right.

Then there is the 3rd group in the middle like "Player57832", who is both a scientist & christian and believes both can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.

joecoolfrog wrote:Incredible

Agreed. This is the "Science is actually a religion" tactic that assumes all Scientists are in league with one another, covering each others backs and ignoring these large holes he speaks of much like the religious do.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

WidowMakers wrote:But it does not contraction science. The "science" you speak of has sooooo many holes and does not even agree with itself. But I know you will disagree with my last statement so please show me all of the things from science that creation contradicts. List them and show the PROOF that they are fact. Then I will show why they are not really true scientific facts that discount creation

Indeed ... what is this "science" of which I speak?

I'm not going to argue with you on this. If you want to believe that an invisible man who lives in the sky and won't talk to anyone who doesn't believe in him created the entire universe in a week then fine ... but you're wrong. If you want to know why that is, google is your friend.

nietzsche wrote:You gotta be kidding me !!

Do people actually debate this? Didn't religion/god has hidden behind faith to never come to light again?

hahahaha !! hahahahahahaha !!!

Save me Tom Cruise !!!

even though im pro evolution i think ur a close-minded ass hole that deserves to be beaten to shit. neither side is actually right because there are a SHIT TON load of holes in BOTH. i side with evolution because i THINK it has less holes. but what ur saying right there just shows ur lack of ability properly debate any topic with out ur inner jack-ass coming out.
WM, dont respond to him its NOT worth it, hes like a small child, ignore him and he will go away soon enough.

Chalk another one up for this thread.

Most of the debate has moved.

I would hope not. It's much more interesting without a god.

Forgive me for not reading the 127 pages here, but I wanted to link to www.answersingenesis.org as a good site for actual Christians with science degrees who have no problems lining up what we see today and what the Bible says.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

And yes, I am a young-earth creationist.

Desoulman wrote:Forgive me for not reading the 127 pages here, but I wanted to link to http://www.answersingenesis.org as a good site for actual Christians with science degrees who have no problems lining up what we see today and what the Bible says.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

And yes, I am a young-earth creationist.

Hello Desoulman, nice to meet you. You I have referred to AIG many times in this discussion. Unfortunately most people just pass it off as foolishness and say that there is no credible science in any of it. Even though it is more consistent with what we actually observe in the real world, it is not evolution so it is wrong.

WM

Hello WidowMakers, nice to meet you too!

I find it sad that people can be so quick to pass off a belief without really studying it. Many people who have come to me with "proof" that the Bible is contradictory or makes false scientific claims, often do not know what it really says.

Desoulman wrote:I find it sad that people can be so quick to pass off a belief without really studying it. Many people who have come to me with "proof" that the Bible is contradictory or makes false scientific claims, often do not know what it really says.

I find it sad that people can be so quick to pass of Leprechauns without studying them. Why haven't you? Do you deny their existence? Why wont you open your heart and let them in? All they want is to give you pots-o-gold! Many people have come to me with "proof" that Leprechauns don't exist and make outrageous scientific claims. They simply cannot believe in what they cannot see. Sadly blinded of such riches.

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

Backglass wrote:

Desoulman wrote:I find it sad that people can be so quick to pass off a belief without really studying it. Many people who have come to me with "proof" that the Bible is contradictory or makes false scientific claims, often do not know what it really says.

I find it sad that people can be so quick to pass of Leprechauns without studying them. Why haven't you? Do you deny their existence? Why wont you open your heart and let them in? All they want is to give you pots-o-gold! Many people have come to me with "proof" that Leprechauns don't exist and make outrageous scientific claims. They simply cannot believe in what they cannot see. Sadly blinded of such riches.

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

By all means, give me some sort of text to study that claims for leprachauns to be real.