Have you ever wondered if our lives revolve around some kind of design or plan that was created far before we existed? Is everything that’s supposed to happen to us set in stone from the day we are born? Do you think that everything happens for a reason? Maybe, you think that everything just happens at random. Maybe, you think that one sequence of events can directly affect another sequence of events in an instant. Just a simple task like walking across the street could play a factor in what happens to you the next day, or a few hours from then, or the a few seconds from then. Something like deciding to get in your car and go for a drive could drastically change the outcome of your life, or somebody else’s. Some people believe that everything that takes place in their lives was already planned out before they were even born, or even before their parents were born. They believe that everything that happens to them is part of some sort of intelligent design and that this design takes it’s course for a reason. This belief is called the theory of Intelligent Design, or an alterative to the natural explanations for the development of life. On the other hand, some people believe that nothing is planned out, nothing happens for a specific reason, and that nothing that happens in your life can be, or has been predicted. There is not a certain name for this belief, but I think that it goes along with a scientific theory called the Chaos Theory. This theory explains how in biology, small random events can affect large ecosystems (like our own environment) in an unpredictable way.
Edward Lorenz is an early pioneer of the Chaos Theory. He first started to discover it in the early 1960’s when he was doing experiments on weather prediction. He would run a certain weather sequence through a computer to get a final outcome. This outcome being something like a rain storm or a windy day. After his first outcome, he tried running the exact same sequence again through the computer, this time starting at the middle of the sequence. Surprisingly, the computer began to predict a completely different weather pattern than what was predicted the first time. He basically discovered that very small changes in the initial conditions would greatly change the outcome of the final weather prediction. This became known as the Butterfly Effect. In 1972, Lorenz wrote a paper called “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?”. The flapping wings represents a small change in the environment’s atmosphere, which causes a chain of events leading to a large scale disaster. This theory can also be applied to other things such as the solar system, plate tectonics, mathematic equations, physics, and population growth. But, I think that this concept can also be applied to chains of events that happen in our regular, everyday lives.
Intelligent Design is a claimed scientific theory that says certain things in our universe can best be explained by intelligent design or cause, and not an undirected process such as natural selection or evolution. It is a very controversial concept. Supporters think that Intelligent Design is equal to, or superior to current scientific theories such as evolution. Non-believers, mainly scientists, see Intelligent Design as unscientific and refer to it as pseudoscience, also known as “junk science”. Leading experts on this theory believe that there is some sort of “intelligent designer” behind the development of our life. Most believe that this “designer” is the Christian god, excluding all other religions. This brings up the question, if this intelligent designer is responsible for our existence, then who or what designed the designer? Who created our designer, or where did they come from? Supporters say that these questions are irrelevant to intelligent design. Overall, Intelligent Design says that some supernatural force or “designer” is responsible for our perfect, fine tuned universe. Some say that if one small event in history would have occurred differently, then our world would be extremely different and the human race might not even exist. So they think that a designer must be responsible for our existence.
Even though these two theories are different in there nature, I think that they can both be related to things that happen in our everyday lives. It is somewhat far-fetched to think that the evolution of something as complex as the human being all happened randomly by chance. It’s like a puzzle accidentally coming together while shaking the pieces around in a box. The chances are extremely unlikely, somewhere around one in a billion. But if you think about it, we’ve had a billion chances. Evolution has been going on for around 4 billion years now, and I think that’s enough time for sometime unlikely to happen at least once. But to think about all the other things in our world that have evolved like plants, animals, and technology is just amazing. Sometimes it seems that everything happens for a reason. But if there is some sort of Intelligent Design and designer, why do we have such things as cancer, killer hurricanes, and other natural disasters? Is it all happening for a reason which we cannot see yet? Will it all, in some strange way, benefit us in the future? Or is it all just randomly happening like a butterfly flapping it’s wings? Do the decisions we make today, affect what will happen to us tomorrow? Our we in control of our own destiny? The truth is, that no one really knows, or probably will ever know. A theory is basically a coherent group of general speculation or ideas. Intelligent design, chaos, religion, evolution; these are all just theories. That means that none of these ideas are true, nor are they untrue. So, to ask if things all happen for a reason or if things just randomly happen, this cannot be answered.
Sounds more like a philosophy paper than a chemistry paper.
What grade did you get on it?
Does it occur to you that chaos theory might work like a spiral out? The function remains the same which makes the spiral unravel, but start it as a smaller spiral at a later point and you get a change in it’s pattern. Please feel free to nuke this observation.
I also notice that on philosophical topics, there is not empirical testing of theories in the scientific sense, but thought projects as a way to resolve whether a theory is reasonable.
The paper was pretty open ended, we could right it on anything scientific or theory related that we were interested in.
and yes, i have thought about the spiral and its relation to randomness and the chaos theory. It’s from a Tool song which talks about ‘embracing the random’ and the like.
btw-i’m 17 year old, C student, in high school with no philosophy background. thats why the paper is kind of lacking in the professional sense.
what an odd chemistry paper, when i was in chemistry class we barely had time to learn the fundamentals let alone write a paper on the philosophy behind it. anyway, i would just like to point out that evolution does not happen by chance and your analogy does not apply to evolution. you can however apply it to abiogenesis, but in my opinion arguing for or against abiogenesis with certainity is arrogant since we don’t have substantial enough information on it.
I myself am in high school chemistry. Im 16 and im writing about stem cell research. Not as philosophical as your chaos theory but there are many non-scientific factors. I am focusing mainly on the religious issues and its affect on what is supposed to be a separated church and state. Maybe ill post it when im finished.
Very cool. Some other kids in my class did their paper on stem cell research. I myself have been meaning to read up on it some more since I only know very little about it.
Spiral_out, your work is promising, and when I read that you’re a high school student, I’m even more impressed. But, of course there is the however, the great however…
You do a excellent job of summarizing arguments pro and con, though you should’ve split your paragraph a lot earlier, but hey I’m not your English teacher.
While your style is explanatory about the debate of religionists and scientists concerning Intelligent Design, you could’ve made a stronger paper had you expressed a firm opinion about the subject. I like to see you join a side. Not because I want to influence you or tell you what to write, perish the thought, but it would’ve made this paper more interesting and thus powerful to your audience.
You do a good job of explaining the opposing arguments to readers and then let them down, by declaring ‘well its unsolvable’. Excuse me for using a term from long before you were born, but seems like a ‘cop-out’.
BTW, I’m with the scientific view. In any respect your writing skills are bound to increase I’m sure as you write more expositories like this. And as a last word: Don’t let any pseudo-scientific charlatan rip you off man
I think oftentimes people equate “Intelligent Design” to “people who are too stupid to find the answer scientifically.” However, even science leaves room for a Prime Mover. Good stuff. Keep it up.
Indeed…Science also “leaves room” for Santa Clause.
Here is where the irrational and fearful grab onto science’s and philosophy’s humility and admittance that they are seekers not knowers and they cosruct a possibility that sooths them.
Hell, there’s room for any absurd possibility man can imagine, is that evidence or an argument supporting the existence of everything?
A reasonable, honest and courageous mind deals in probabilities not in absolte certainties.
A reasonable, honest and courageous mind doesn’t believe whatever suits him or flatters him or what his mothr and father taught him to be ‘truth’ withut question or exploration.
A reasonable, honest and courageous mind does not grab onto any aliver of doubt in the other’s opinion or any absence of absolute certainty to place there his needed hypothesis, driven rpimarily by emotion and desire.
How ironic to use intellectual integrity’s very self-doubting honesty and its allowance for any possibility, no matter how absurd, to construct a personal, unjustified, absolute certainty.
The recent psychological strategy of using the ‘prove a negative’ argument to justify childish fantasies and feel-good hypothetical is how the weak and desperate attempt to harmonize scientific and rational methodology with emotionalism and close-minded, fearful hopefulness.
Perhaps if certain minds cannot explore all probabilities and judge them on their specific rational and empirical merits they should stop pretending that they are ‘objective thinkers’ interested in finding ‘truth’ and admit that their only interest in reality is to find things to support their already established belief and to save themselves from reality.
Here’s a starting proposition:
If something’s too good to be true, then….
After the fact:
Any debate which attempts to equate the absurd with the probable is a disservice to human thought - might as well debate the flat Earth hypothesis over the round Earth hypothesis as if they are both equally probable and scientifically and rationally respectable.
An idea that begins with a conclusion and then thinks backwards, finding excuses and reasons and hopes in everything to justify its already decided upon resolution, is not the equal to an idea that begins with no conclusions and thinks forwards constructing probabilities of truth on facts and evidence and rational thought.
Only in a country such as the U.S., the closest to a fundamentalist Christian state as you can get, can there still be debate over the validity of Evolution theory and a debate over if its should be taught alongside an unsubstantiated and irrational hope of Creationism.
When I watch a magic trick and I am ignorant by the mechanics of the trickery and amazed by the illusion, I do not jump to the conclusion that the magician has extraordinary abilities and paranormal talents. I assume that whatever is occurring and in whatever manner the illusion is created it all adheres to easily understandable and knowable and logical laws of nature.
The needy, desperate, frightened soul sees the same magic trick and, in his haste to retain the paranormal as his backdoor exit from reality’s woes and finality, tries to reason that the magician does indeed possess abilities outside time and space or that he communicates with forces beyond human comprehension. He takes ignorance and constructs a hypothesis based on ignorance and dependant on it.
We peer upon the universe, we observe nature and, like with the magic trick, we are amazed and taken over by the magical spectacle.
Some of us, in our wonderment, seek out the mechanics of how things work so as to become conjurers ourselves.
Others, cowering in fear before their own mortality and affected by suffering, use the very wonderment to project upon the unknown a hope that will save them from the very thing they are amazed by.
This is the difference between a coward and a slave and a courageous, spirit.
Let the Greeks teach you how a man faces existence.
Not to cower and plead before the unknown, but to confront it and know it and then overcome it.
To live with dignity.
I almost bought an introductory text called Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos but I opted out for Kaufmann’s Existentialism. lol Oh well, I think I will be taking a class on non-linear systems next year, and we will learn some of Chaos. Chaos theory seems to be a very interesting and hot topic these days. I think the Butterfly Effect movie has brought it to popular consciousness.
Well, if you believe your perceptions to be worth a salt, then it means you believe that cause and effect are true things.
If you believe this, then you believe in time. If you don’t believe in a first cause, then you must believe in the opposite- an infinite regress of causes.
If you do believe in a first cause (which is much more logical than Santa Claus because its actually something that can be derived from our own perception, which you seem to value so highly), then you can also surmise any other number of things by contemplating this entity.
Stop making it look like this is some “imagined” plaything that is for the purpose of placating the mind. It makes no sense, for anyone who DOES believe in the opposite, that the universe is an infinite regress and there is no God or First Mover, should also realize that his perceptions of cause and effect in an infinite and unending universe are irrelevant. Thus, he should realize the paradox of trying to discover anything, or share it with others for the sake of looking smart (remind you of anyone)?
It would surely make him a hypocrite to seek that which is good, knowledgeable, pleasurable, or any other thing. For he would realize it is all irrelevant. Even the pleasure he gets from “thinking” he is smarter than others would be pointless.
You believe in things that you say that you don’t, Satyr, simply by the way that you argue. You argue that there is no certainty to be found, but you must also agree that statement could be uncertain. You excel at saying nothing and saying it eloquently.
I’m still working on trying to finish critiquing your essay when I find your rambling to be something other than “ad nauseum ad infinitum.” But it is difficult to take pleasure in critiquing something you know is false and/or irrelevant and pointless. People like you, who refuse to take any stance on anything, are a bore. You refuse to give anything other than tenuous accounts of the activities of human beings, and then criticize any points that others raise on their “scientific unlikelihood” despite the fact that you must acknowledge that your perception of anything is subject to the possibility of being false. However, you do this in a very clever manner, so it continues (to the average reader) to appear as though you’re making valid comebacks in the argument. You must get some sort of pleasure from doing this, because it is nonsense (from a logical standpoint) to think that any sort of progress or change can come from such long-winded, empty vacuoles of writing.
Then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being weak. Well, perhaps a weak man is someone who is overly dependent on his five senses, and thinks nothing of where he came from or where he is going. Rather than discuss the possibility of the soul or of the end of man, he assumes them false from the get-go. Thus, if there were anything true to be found in the contemplation of these things he has ignored, he will surely miss these truths because he never even started down the path to finding them. He only came to this impasse by arbitrarily deciding on a certain “good” for himself, and then using science and the rhetoric of “human perception is the true measure of the universe” to rationalize that good.
He always considers himself to be “winning” the discussion (only because he continually declares himself the winner) without ever addressing anything directly. Sad.
But yeah. Pretty much there has to be a conscious God, or all the matter in the universe has to have always existed. It has to be one or the other. For the first mover can only be a singular thing, for all other things would come from it (even consciousness). Thus, it must possess all of these things. Thus, truth would be set by it, and would have nothing to do with man’s perception.
In the universe of the infinite regress of causes, it is pointless to engage in intellectual debates other than for the temporary pleasure of them. It would be no better than any other pleasurable thing. Any “intellect” who holds the belief that there is no God, and that the universe is an infinite regress, would surely realize the futility of holding any intellectual virtue. And you’d think by doing that he would just learn to shut up. It would be irrational for him to say anything at all. And you said it best…
“Perhaps if certain minds cannot explore all probabilities and judge them on their specific rational and empirical merits they should stop pretending that they are ‘objective thinkers’ interested in finding ‘truth’ and admit that their only interest in reality is to find things to support their already established belief and to save themselves from reality.”
Never arm yourself with weapons that others can use against you. You’re finished, in my mind (which is apparently the only thing that matters). Even if you are the “better” or the “stronger” there is nothing you can do to stop me in my pointless pursuit of things that you opine to be non-existent. Good luck trying.
Misdirected mind, cause and effect insinuate a separation between cause and its effect, as if they were two separate things, and they depend on a temporal unidirectional flow.
Time is not unidirectional, as no dimension is, but only human awareness and life perceiving it, is so.
There is no cause separate from effect but a flow of one into another.
Time flowing and altering, as it interacts with itself, and splintering and pooling.
Misdirected mind, I believe in constant temporal flow with no absolute end and no beginning.
Your perception, misdirected mind, can only tell you about appearances, generalized and simplified to make them comprehensible.
My perceptions tell me nothing begins nor ends but is in constant flow.
How your mind derives an absolute beginning which you have no experience of, remains to be seen, and how you end at that absolute beginning and you then do not seek a cause for it, is your prejudice.
How you derive this beginning to be an “entity†also remains to be seen.
Looking “smart†in comparison to you is not a difficult thing.
You certainly do a good job of looking the opposite of “smartâ€.
Merely responding to your childish reasoning takes a lot of humility, tolerance and unnecessary effort on my part.
No wonder you’ve promised great things in my “Feminization of Man†thread and delivered nothing.
You use words like “irrelevant†but only provide your emotional reactions as justifications.
I only provide an honest description of what I perceive.
You provide an absolute extrapolation derived from your imprecise and emotional needs for a “prime moverâ€.
I perceive flow and change and recognize myself in it.
You project your insecurities and imagine a “beginningâ€, a “cause†which is not “causedâ€, arbitrarily changing your reasoning as it suits your desired outcome.
You begin with the premise of cause/effect – an absurdity to anyone who has advanced in thinking beyond philosophy 101 – and you then decide to imagine an “entity†there - a causeless cause.
How convenient for you.
I’m sure this has no psychological implications and that you are not being irrational.
You are starting to sound like a hysterical woman.
How wonderfully you now show how ridiculous your reasoning is and how naïve and childish you are.
I was looking forward to reading your “challenge†in the other thread just so that everyone can see the inner workings of a religious mind.
You continue looking for relevance in ignorance and in fear and in blind hope, by groveling to an entity you can neither prove nor rationalize nor even make plausible, without resorting to selective reasoning and absolutist thought.
The hypocrisy of the mind wanting an ‘out’ from his own mortality and finding it is his imagination and idealization of the unknown, which then pretends selflessness and ‘love’ and deeper meanings without being able to define nor argue its views in any mature way, is unequaled in you.
The hypocrite pretends going beyond ego and then imagines himself worthy of godly attentions and of eternal life.
Now that’s arrogance and duplicity. =D>
Your desire to use the ‘I know I am but so are you’ strategy is a well-known method of equating rational thought, which always includes skepticism, with absolutist irrational thought.
When this hypothetical ‘equality’ is reached then the religious mind can claim superiority because its perspective offers the most advantages to the needy human mind.
What I believe and how I believe it, you – I now can see – will never understand.
Your quality of mind is so poor that it takes great self-control just to remain civil and respectful towards you – in accordance with forum rules.
If this post is any indication of what I will be faced with, then I am dreading wasting my time with you.
Nevertheless, my integrity forces me to answer all challenges in that thread, no matter how pathetic and childish and naïve they might be.
I “refuse to take a stance�
Have you been reading my viewpoints?
But, I suspect, that you mean that, unlike you, I refuse to take an absolute stance on anything. True, I am skeptical by nature.
Absolutes are your domain, little mind, and as such they demand absolute proof.
I offer perspectives which explain common, perceptible and verifiable phenomena.
The possibility of me being wrong is not a counter-argument.
It’s an insinuation.
Every idea ever proposed has the possibility of being wrong.
Just like in nature there are superior and inferior organisms, minds and, therefore perspectives and ideas and opinions.
Then you can do nothing else by expose me with that precise and aware mind of yours.
“Careâ€, little mind, is a need. A need distorts and prejudices reason.
Objectivity is reached through indifference.
If you allow, as you do, your desires and hopes and emotions to dictate what you see and how you interpret it, then it is no wonder you are who you are.
My usage of the word “weak†has always been towards those, like you, who offer nothing but feel-good, irrational thoughts as valid respectable challenges and then expect to be taken seriously.
Perhaps, as a believer in cause/effect, you should come up with a rational explanation as to why your “Prime Mover†is the only thing without a cause.
Perhaps you can follow through with your line of thought, with courage instead of fearful need, and come to a conclusion your mommy and daddy and your culture didn’t force-feed you from birth.
Well then, we come down to the nitty-gritty of things. This lost fearful mind needs a timeless soul to make its life worth living and its suffering bearable. It needs comforting. It needs immortality.
It thinks itself so important and worthy…yet it also thinks itself humble and selfless.
I will await your reasoning and definitions of a “soulâ€.
Begin by defining existence.
Now here you are being a slanderous liar.
Point to one instance where I, and not you or those like you, have declared myself a “winnerâ€.
Is this the integrity and seriousness you demanded from me?
Reread the entire thread, if you have nothing better to do, and tell me where I’ve said I’ve won anything.
Little minds, like yours, have been entering and declaring victory or promising to expose me as a fraud for months now.
Then they slither into the abyss of anonymity taking their delusions and childish brains with them.
I’m sure all of them, like you will eventually do, leave feeling vindicated.
Feeling is all you have – you have a classic female brain.
Now, it’s your turn.
Thank you for the absolute declaration of ‘truth’, with no reasoning or argument.
I thank you because now everyone can see what type of mind you really are.
“There has to be…â€, â€â€¦can only be… is indicative of your mindset and quality.
Define matter.
Define consciousness.
Consciousness, little brain, is a tool not some divine thing.
It serves a unity; it is necessary for survival.
Now tell us why a perfect entity would be conscious and of what would it need consciousness for and what would it be conscious of when it knows everything and is everything?
Define existence and then tell me how an absolute God exists and within what He exists.
And here you show your psychology, your need for FINALITY, an end that will give purpose to you, because you cannot function on your own and in uncertainty.
You need to be given guidance and meaning from without.
You need to be defined by another and you exemplify the feminized mind which seeks a master to follow - to submit to.
The herd brain in its purity.
Even the usage of the word “regress†is his emotional reaction to temporal flow.
If reality frightens you, little brain, then continue dreaming of gods and angels and paradise.
Rational thought is neither for the simpleton nor for the coward.
Little brain, you are insignificant to me.
You are a means of showing your type to those that deserve my respect and attentions.
You are a specimen.
I can prove nothing to a retarded mind and psychology; you are a stagnating, deformed, castrated, atrophied mind and thusly you are unsalvageable.
Natural selection produces many so that the few can survive.
Give thanks to human intervention for sheltering you from the consequences of your own obtuseness.
The human species declines and human innovation attempts to correct what it has done – this is referred to as “progressâ€.
Civilization depends on your gullibility and the ease with which you can be manipulated by ideas that flatter and comfort you, making you indispensable to society.
You are the herd-mind.
I’ve given up trying to change the world a long, long, time ago. I was once an idealist myself.
Then I became aware of the average quality of mind - the mediocre mind – and I concluded that its’ a waste of my efforts to try to change such thickness.
I now occupy myself with those I deem above the norm.
You aren’t it.
I love how you convince yourself that you’ve landed a blow.
Perhaps you can declare “Mission Accomplished†like that leader of yours did, and whom you so resemble in quality of mind, and go away content that you’ve debunked or exposed me.
“Weapons�
Even your arguments are borrowed.
I would give a child a knife, any day. It can only hurt itself.
Little mind, I await your empirical justifications for a God.
It’ll give your attacks substance and make them more than pathetic inanities.
My essay was about a social, a human, phenomenon – I called it “Feminization of Man†and it described how minds, like yours, become the normor advantageous to a group.
You choose to enter its metaphysical implications. These are waters little children should not enter without life-preservers.
You don’t know how to swim here, little brain.
So does the need to reason also prejudice and distort reason?
Read Aquinas.
I didn’t think God to be possible and/or probable until recently. Thank you. And yes, you are right. You never did once declare yourself the winner. I am sorry.
However it was interesting to see you rise up with moral indignation.
For a more rational explanation of the metaphysics of God, I would pick up the medieval philosophers Anselm and Aquinas. They can say it a lot better than I can. I could go dig some things up, if you insist.
Do you actually surmise that there is no beginning or end by your perception? How? For you accuse me of using something other than empiricism and rationality when the chain of causes leads back to God. But, can your rational thought lead back to what you believe?
By the way, my response to your essay is more professional than that post. I had been celebrating St. Patrick’s Day a bit early. I need to stop posting after I’ve had a few. I will admit the winner comment was out of line.
I don’t think my mind is unsalvageable. I trust my senses to a certain degree, and I believe that time is true. You, on the other hand, believe that it is true only in our perception, and that there are no absolute beginnings or ends. It seems to me that there is no way to test either of these theories, nor is there any way to determine which is more likely (which would still say nothing). So even the theories you postulate based on your perception require a “faith” of sorts. There is a lot to the human mind that science still cannot explain. And though they say, “We’re still working on it,” one should not take that as a guarantee that it will be possible to pick apart every aspect of humanity. For if man does have a soul, then it would be something that science could never find.
Does this mean its not worth talking about? Well, I guess it depends on what you’re interested in. It would be very funny for a purely mechanical being to say that he takes joy in searching for the truth, and to think that he has some sort of an autonomous will beyond that of chemical reactions.
Do I want there to be a God? Well yeah, of course. I mean, I like existing. I would like there to be some purpose to existence other than what everyone makes for himself, something that all can share unity with. Call me a hippie. Does my want for this skew my judgment? If it does, I’ll keep working on it. Does my want for this eliminate it as a possibility? Of course not.
Tell me, Satyr, whenever you have a certain feeling, do you try to pick it apart with your mind, and say, “Well, the only reason I’m feeling this way is because of this and this and this…” Perhaps that is why you’re so eager to explain why you think others believe what they do.
If there is even the remote possibility of a first mover, and if it is the greatest thing, then we should exhaust every possible resource trying to learn about it before we give up. I am not the religious sort of person who goes to church or even prays, but I think that all consciousness had to come from something conscious. I just want to know if it exists and what it is. This is not some belief that has been instilled in my by someone else (in a social matter). I just have a boring job and I think a lot, and this sort of thinking seems to be the most interesting. It may serve no economic or survival purpose, but that is the luxury of having more than what one needs to survive, I suppose- sitting around and thinking about useless things.
If my mind is uninfluenced by others, but is simply a poor and slow mind in a biological sense, then you should take pity on me and help me to discover the truth as best as I can rather than insult me. For one day there could be a catastrophic event that destroys the vast majority of humanity, and by some degree of luck I may be one of the few remaining individuals. And I would be forced, in all of my inferiority, to reproduce and continue the species. So you’d best prepare me.
Oh, and as far as the “Mission Accomplished” statement, rest assured I share no sentiments with my “ruler.” It is obvious to me that his quest for justice is merely an expedition for economic gain and nothing more.
Also, please define “need” for me.
To the initial poster: I am sorry for bringing my feud with Satyr here. Satyr: please continue this in the other thread from here out.
I couldnt agree more actually. These essays we wrote were for a contest that our teacher was going to send them into. One of the “rules” was that your essay had to be between 700-1000 words. Mine as it stands, is 998 words. I actually had a few more sentences in there, but had to delete them. Why am I being limited to my writing? I dunno ask the stupid people who made the rules for the contest lol.
ps- Ade, I dont care if you have feuds with other people, I enjoy reading them. lol
