Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FL "Debate Thread"

Pages: (100) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

SLP Posts: 136 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,10:52    Allow me to head Floyd off at the pass: Please read the following passage and answer the question that follows: In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. Does the above passage indicate to you that: 1. The author sees evolution by natural selection as a 'basic' phenomenon/concept that has applications to biology, cosmology; both animate/living and inanimate/non-living things and thus as a concept, 'evolution' ties all all these areas together 2. The author is indicating that abiogenesis/cosmochemical evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Darwin Note that it is quite likley that FL will only quote this part: "...organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" because he is dishonest.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,11:32    Quote (SLP @ Sep. 25 2009,15:28) Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:30) Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)   Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41) Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves. The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated. IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet. I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry: Stiffy? I have not heard or used that term since about 1986 - thanks for the mammaries! :D REPENT NOW BEFORE THEY RUN OUT! HOMO. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,11:42    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,17:49) Quote What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one? All I'm saying (and as the secular article I provided clearly showed), is that those who try to advocate a local flood face as many or more challenges from the skeptical side as do those  who advocate a global flood.   As you know, there are some TE's out there who suggest that the Noahic Flood was a merely local flood, so I just provided the article (on the peanut thread which redirected everything to this thread) for the information it gave. Other than that, I offer no further discussion froabout the Flood, because that's not the thread topic. Congratulations FL You have passed the AtBC Lenny Frank Pizza Delivery Boy "Your Opininion Is No Better Or Worse Than His Other Delivery Boys Test". He's on some googlable® trotsky-ite site and I'm sure will thrilled to know you have his pizza. If you are quick and deliver it before it gets cold I'm sure you will get a tip. As far as quality & taste is concerned I suggest you keep your motor running and a bullit proof vest might be in order if you think he will listen for longer than it takes to pass said pizza. Good luck on the shit shoving I hear handing out pamphlest outside schools attracts more than a glance from the law these days, especially for the pronoun challenged. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,12:09    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52) Quote Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin? No, FL, the Theory of Evolution describes how life changes with each successive generation, and describes the mechanisms that cause these changes, as well as describes the results of these changes. Only perfidious, forked tongued piety shysters, like yourself, FL, would imply that a definitive understanding of abiogenesis is vital to understanding and explaining observed examples of evolution, from fruit flies and antibiotic resistant bacteria to wild flowers and fossil lineages.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,12:10    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52) Quote Quote Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin? Nope. Not at all. It is about the process of speciation, nothing more. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,12:36    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 25 2009,10:36) . Quote Quote Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin? The ToE doesn't depend on having a confirmed explanation for how life arose in the first place. It does require that first life did arise at least once, and it concludes that known current life descended from only one or a few original types[/quote] Well, I'd go a step further and say that the ToE doesn't address origins in anyway. Book titles to get peoples' attention aside, evolution doesn't even address the origin of species if one sits and thinks about it - rather it explains that "species" are modified configurations of population groups that all relate to one another and that in many ways the term "species" doesn't mean much. All species developed from a single group of similar organisms; none of the species after that first group ever originated on this planet - they were all modifications of some related group. I personally dislike the use of the phrase 'origin of species' because in my mind it gives the wrong impression. It implies distinct parameters and boundaries - distinct edges - that define species, thus implying a point in time when that specifically demarcated group "originated". But as anyone who's spent any time studying biological groups and systems can relate, such distinct edges don't actually exist. Sure, you can say that there's a distinction between cats and dogs or birds and fish - at THOSE levels distinctions are easy - but it becomes much more difficult when you are talking Spotted owls and Barred owls or Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers and Red-naped Sapsuckers. And while creationists routinely point to this sort of issue and try to use it to defend the concept of "macro" vs "micro" evolution, such misses the point that the relatedness these organisms is the same type of relatedness we can see between cats and dogs. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,13:15    Quote Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life." Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes. Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious. Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?   Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,13:17    Think of the origin of life vs. the diversity of life, if this helps you, FloydLee. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,13:27    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)     Quote Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life." Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes. Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious. Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?   Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye? Tell you what, then, Floyd Lee. If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life, then surely you can find lots of quotes from that book -- paragraph after paragraph, in fact -- to support that. Hell, if it's *really* about what you claim, then entire chapters should be about nothing but that, yes? Let's find out. I could help you, but I won't, because I doubt you've ever even read the damn thing. The Origin of Species is all about abiogenesis, right? The full text of On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection : or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life (1st Ed.) is found at that link. Start reading and reporting the facts, son. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,13:47    I'm especially fond of the chapter entitled "Life Comes from Nothing and the Bible is Stupid." Maybe FL could provide us all with a summary of a book he's obviously never read. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Dan Posts: 77 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:02    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15) You guys are rather surprising sometimes. Unlike you.  I thought that you wouldn't address the topic of this debate, namely "Is knowledge of evolution consistent with faith in Christianity?", and indeed you haven't. Instead you've devoted countless words to your opinion, not to the fact under debate.  You have not yet addressed the topic under discussion. Realizing that you're failing, you're trying to change the subject to "Is Origin of Species the most appropriate name for Darwin's masterwork?" which, quite obviously, has nothing to do with knowledge of evolution, faith in Christianity, or their compatibility.

someotherguy Posts: 398 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:07    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15) Quote Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life." Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes. Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious. Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?   Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye? When many of us hear a phrase like "biological origins" we tend to think that it's referring to the origin of biology--ie. the origin of life.  Hence the confusion. -------------- Evolander in training

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:21    Quote Yet another major US evangelical has now declared himself a YEC. Mega church Pastor Charles Stanley has invided Ken Ham to  speak at his church in October. Now THAT's powerful.  (They say theologian RC Sproul has also become convinced of YEC as well and now identifies with YEC.  That's good too.) Okay, I know that this announcement is bad news from your perspective, but I cannot help my feelings here:  that's very good news, a welcome surprise.     Quote I strongly feel that unless a mainstream evangelical comes out in support of it, evolution Sunday is really dead in the water. I honestly don't think Evolution Sunday is dead in the water--not even close!--if the various media articles are any indication.   (Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!) However, evangelical refusal to play along with the Evolution Sunday gig, has at least slowed down the problem, and bought American Christianity some badly needed time to regroup and take a stand against ES.   FloydLee

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:24    Interesting.  I just posted on Peter Henderson's thread and it automatically redirected my post here.  Well, so be it.   Besides, given that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, it would be in the best interest of American Christians to boycott Evolution Sunday anyway!! FloydLee

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:25    Just to point out again, though. Evolution is true. So to the extent it doesn't reconcile with your personal beliefs, they are not true. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:28    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15) Quote Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes. Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious. Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?   Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye? Unlike you, Floyd, we keep up with the latest developments on theories in science. You might want to do a little reading because the last time I checked Modern Synthesis and the ToE as taught today is a bit advanced from what Darwin proposed. But you're more than welcome to keep attacking that strawman. In any event, all modern life forms did not "originate from" any common ancestor - once again you demonstrate the problem with that term and the particularly inaccurate implications when combined with the term "species" - but rather evolved from a common ancestor, hence the reason we call the process "evolution" and not "origination" or "creation". You might want to take note of that. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:33    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,14:21)   Quote Yet another major US evangelical has now declared himself a YEC. Mega church Pastor Charles Stanley has invided Ken Ham to  speak at his church in October. Now THAT's powerful.  (They say theologian RC Sproul has also become convinced of YEC as well and now identifies with YEC.  That's good too.) Okay, I know that this announcement is bad news from your perspective, but I cannot help my feelings here:  that's very good news, a welcome surprise.       Quote I strongly feel that unless a mainstream evangelical comes out in support of it, evolution Sunday is really dead in the water. I honestly don't think Evolution Sunday is dead in the water--not even close!--if the various media articles are any indication.   (Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!) However, evangelical refusal to play along with the Evolution Sunday gig, has at least slowed down the problem, and bought American Christianity some badly needed time to regroup and take a stand against ES.   FloydLee You might want to check on the recent poll data from the American Religious Identification Survey.   Quote "Twenty-two percent of the youngest cohort of adults self-identify as nones [meaning "None" as a response to the question about religion] and they will become tomorrow's parents," according to the report. "If current trends continue and cohorts of non-religious young people replace older religious people, the likely outcome is that in two decades the nones could account for around one-quarter of the American population." Just to bring you back down to Earth, Floyd -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:35    Quote If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life, That's not what I said.  That wasn't even suggested in the post.   (Where did you even get that idea from?) Read my post again, Deadman.   It's quite clear.  Take another look.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,14:39    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)     Quote Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin? Right. "Biological Origins" meaning Origin of species, Floyd? So -- you decided to post up about the ToE being about the origin of species via common ancestry? Something everyone here (save you, I suspect) already knows? You really, really, reaallly  didn't mean "origins of life?" Uh-huh. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,16:00    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,14:35) Quote If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life, That's not what I said.  That wasn't even suggested in the post.   (Where did you even get that idea from?) Read my post again, Deadman.   It's quite clear.  Take another look. The fact of the matter remains that On the Origin of Species is about how speciation occurs as according to Charles Darwin's notes and observations.  Yes, Darwin touches upon the subject of abiogenesis, but, the problems are that a) it's quite obvious to the honest reader that he's simply speculating, b) the honest observer will also note that scientists studying abiogenesis have come a long, long, long, long way since Darwin's mental meanderings about a "warm pond," c) Darwin's speculation on abiogenesis have little bearing on the rest of his book, and served only as a suggestion or idea of the origin of the common ancestor to all life, d) On the Origin of Species is not some sort of magical holy book that is supposed to be worshiped by biologists. Even so, it's quite clear, FL, that you have absolutely no intention of reading even a single word from On the Origin of Species or any other book on any topic remotely to do with biology without the intent to quotemine for Jesus for the utterly irrational fear that God will punish you for your visual blasphemy by sending a pair of irate eagles to peck out your eyes.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,16:01    Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 25 2009,16:04) [quote=Louis,Sep. 25 2009,05:41][/quote] Louis, that was my first laugh-out-loud today. Thanks. {Tips hat} Glad to be of service, sir. Louis -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,16:12    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,14:17) Think Already doomed to failure. Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 25 2009,17:15 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,16:13    Nothing here, even this is too much. Sorry. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,16:14    Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2009,22:12) Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,14:17) Think Already doomed to failure. Award yourself Post of the Week for at least 24 hours. That comment was made of win. Louis -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,16:26    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 25 2009,17:14) Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2009,22:12)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,14:17) Think Already doomed to failure. Award yourself Post of the Week for at least 24 hours. That comment was made of win. Louis There's something vaguely unseemly about awarding myself the PoTW, which is why I've always declined to do it in the past. But because it was your nomination, my homo-nymous friend, I'll take a moment for a bit of self aggrandizement. Plus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster recently smiled on my home personally, which I take to be a sign of mondo special chosenoneness. Quote Under the Rainbow, by me on Flickr -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,18:28    Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 25 2009,16:26) [snip Loose's blatant mod-kissery] my homo-nymous friend, I'll take a moment for a bit of self aggrandizement... The Flying Spaghetti Monster recently smiled on my home personally, which I take to be a sign of mondo special chosenoneness.   Quote Under the Rainbow, by me on Flickr TAKE COVER! He's about to bust out in Judy Garland show tunes again! One can only hope that -- besides the gingham dress and ruby slippers -- this time he has underwear on. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Dale_Husband Posts: 118 Joined: April 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2009,20:59    Quote (Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!) What that proves is that Zimmerman is more tolerant of Christianity than you are of atheism, FL. You really don't get it, do you? Your obsession with proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity is bound to result in the total downfall of the religion. People don't like being lied to about something as fundamental as their origins or ancestry and you cannot fool people who know all the facts and live up to them. You makes God look like a liar, which is the ultimate blasphemy. Of course, if you WANT to beleive in a God who is a liar and an idiot, be my guest. Don't expect me and others who know better to accept that. You need to grow up, and find a God that is real, not the childish one you know. He is dead and must be buried to save humanity. -------------- If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2009,10:16    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:43) Quote Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No. Yes.  He is. So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book. Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now. Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.   The End. You need to take your Five Incompatibles, wrap them firmly around the thick shaft of your belief then jerk vigorously. After a while you will be ejaculating the prayer. OMG! OMG!

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2009,10:20    Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36) Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54) Quote Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.   Anybody able to refute this particular statement? So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope? Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then? NOMA?

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2009,10:38    Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,10:20) Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36) Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)   Quote Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.   Anybody able to refute this particular statement? So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope? Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then? NOMA? It's not a matter of overlapping magisteria, FL was brainwashed a long time ago to think that evolution was of the devil, and was taught to denounce it no matter what, even if it means lying, slandering, misrepresenting, or putting words into the mouths of other people, including the Pope and corpses. Then there's the problem of how FL is a hypocrite, in that he thinks it's okay to denounce something and imply it's some sort of soul-eating monster, and yet, still think it's peachy keen to continue using any and all of its products. I mean, even if we put aside the fact that Creationism, as a "science" is so barren so as to make the fig tree Jesus withered out of spite look like a cornucopia with a trunk, for FL to denounce evolution with his stupid, catty innuendo, and his idiotic points, and yet, not advocate the ban of its products is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It's akin to a fire and brimstone rabbi who preaches and screeches at his flock about how even thinking of straying from kosher laws will turn one into a super-whore, complete with flashing neon genitals and exploding breasts, while, the rabbi, himself, spends most of his time screaming and shouting in restaurants about how the cook didn't put enough cheese on his lobster-stuffed pork chops.

Pages: (100) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard