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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 166 167 168 169 170 [171] 172 173 174 175 176 ... >

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,17:14    Re "a hypothetical 'design detector' would never stop beeping." Maybe that's why they don't hear the scientific explanations - too much noise in their ears? Henry

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,19:02    Quote Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size. This man is giving up any pretension of wanting to be taken seriously by intellectuals. Really, I'm starting to have the same vibes I get from Larry FarFromSaneMan: straightjacket time. I guess Dumbski's not going there because foaming at the mouth about the end of science is about as harmless as those who march in public places saying "the end is near - next week!" week after week after week. It's almost sad to see this.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,19:08    They're not even pretending to do science any more. Its just 'culture war' from here on in. Expect more 'God' posts. -------------- "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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,19:40    Quote Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size. Where, in the whittling of the Black Knight, is evolutionary theory (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?): So, ask an open ended question, with no readily meaningful answers and this qualifies as work on ID? This might be fun; let me try.  If you like it Dembski, can I be a fellow at Disco? Here goes: Just as the number of court battles ID has lost has increased over the past decade, so has the number of tasty ice creams grown over the same period.  Which ice cream flavor goes better with terrible cross x performance? The White Kind Fish Food The One that's Green with Chips in It Pork Loin I don't eat ice cream -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,05:50    DaveScott still seems to be infuencing things via William Dembski's subconscious:   Quote http://www.rit.edu/~smo4215/monty.htm#Scene%204 By the way, I think there’s an analogy between Arthur (ID) and the Black Knight (evolution) to be made here. Comment by DaveScot — October 1, 2005 @ 12:15 am or maybe he was inspired by this ID classic from DougMoran:The Problem of Improvable Design

selfishgene Posts: 3 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,12:04    I have lurked here for a while but did not register until today when I saw the following inane post http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1349.  It has got to be one of the most absurd I have yet seen (although it is hard to say, considering how much over there is so ridiculous).  I then registered there so I could try to post a comment on the thread but it did not get through the moderation queue so I tried again to post the same sort of thing, with a few words changed only because I forgot how I originally worded it (and unsurprisingly it was not approved, diplomatic as I tried to be).  The wording of my rejected comment was Quote There appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding about the idea of selfish genes, a misunderstanding which perhaps Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene would clear up.  Dawkins tackles the very issue of how altruism and cooperation on the part of individuals.  He shows how group selection is not necessary to account for altruism and that selfishness (in a technical sense) on the level of genes can explain the evolution of altruism and cooperation. I guess this just shows yet again how they simply do not understand the theory of evolution at all.  I guess I simply am disgusted (though unsurprised) at this yet another crude misunderstanding of Dawkins and selfish genes, which is why I have decided to post here.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,12:19    That is a bizarre thread of Denyse's, selfishgene. She says, at one point, "I never said cooperation violated the theory of evolution" and a while later she says "cooperation is a problem for darwinism". I am not in the least surprised that you were banned, though. you violated Cardinal Rule #1: Point Out Our Obvious Wrongness, And You'll Be Banned. From that same thread: Quote ... Perhaps the ToE can account for symbiosis/ cooperation, however intelligent design is the better explanation. The reasoning? Plug-n-play technology baby- As in intelligent designers can see and understand the “big picture” and plan for that. Intent and purpose- powerful stuff indeed. So powerful it has blinded the anti-IDists from seeing the “big picture”… ... Comment by Joseph — July 23, 2006 @ 2:35 pm Wonder what plans he's talking about?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,15:12    Quote I guess I simply am disgusted (though unsurprised) at this yet another crude misunderstanding of Dawkins and selfish genes, which is why I have decided to post here. interestingly enough, we started a bit of a discussion on the selfish gene idea in a thread here last week. go into the thread titled "selfish methane" here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2533 jean and I had been banting about various supports/refutations; check farther on down the thread. feel free to jump in. cheers (and welcome! -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

selfishgene Posts: 3 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,16:49    Ichthyic, thank you for pointing me to that thread

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,02:52    selfishgene, welcome. As Ud themselves have said before, it is not a forum for debate or where critique of any ID concepts has a right to be. It might be tolerated, but all in all the forum is a special, wamr and cosy place where ID people can croon about their own insight and importance. Oh, and of course to preach to one another.... It really is just a religious blog trying to sound scientific. Sad thing is, the religion is poor and the science is just weak pseudo-science.

bourgeois_rage Posts: 117 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,03:06    Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,21:04) By the way, what do I win? Yesterday, someone asked for speculation on how long it would take someone to get the boot, and guessed 50-some hours. I guessed 24. By my reconing, Dembski banned me about 27 hours after comments opened. I posted this contest. The rules were: Quote Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for someone to get banned while staying within the rules posted? Closest without going over. From the time that comments are re-opened I give it 58 hours. click So Thanks for playing. Maybe if you posted a couple of more times at UD you could have been victorious. -------------- Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,03:25    Who won, then? Looks like steve was 3 hours under; did someone guess 29?  If not, I would like to tke this opportunity to guess 29.   -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

bourgeois_rage Posts: 117 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,04:04    I am an idiot.... Steve you won... I can't understand my own rules. I'll try to find a prize worthy of such idiocy. -------------- Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,05:27    Thinkquote of the day: Why career scientists cannot afford to consider challenges to Darwinism As stupid as it is boring.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,05:34    From the latest Black Knight thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1348 Quote 3.  If we consider the body as being Philosophical Naturalism, the head as the evolutionary Media, and the leg as the surpression of scientific evidence against Darwinism in public schools, then we can say that we are in stage IV. Darwinism is not “officialy” defeated yet, but, just like the Knight in picture IV, it’s just a matter of time until the scientific evidence “chops away” the other leg (surpression of evidence, AKA “We don’t allow for critical analysis of the theory of Evolution”). Something we need is a “visual mark”. Communism was “officialy” dead when the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Saddam was “officialy” rejected by the Iraqis when they brought down his statue. We still need something like that to declare Darwinism dead. I sugest that the British Christians remove Darwin’s body from Westminster Abbey and put his body somewhere else. Saddly, since there is a 4-5% church attendency in England, and since many churchian leaders are “burning incence to Darwin”, I don’t think that will happen any time soon. Comment by Mats — July 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am Yeah, let's pull up old Chuck's remains and throw it in the ocean.  That's just like tearing down the Berlin wall. Quote 4.  We’re in stage V, most certainly. As long as we can’t offer a logical proof for ID, the materialist will continue to retreat ever more deeply into the depths of ignorance and pure chance–and mock and taunt us all the while. The Black Knight is an outstanding analogy for our situation! Comment by crandaddy — July 23, 2006 @ 2:12 pm Yup, because you can't offer a valid proof for ID, us materialist evilutionists have to retreat...wait, what are we retreating from? Oh the tardity.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,06:01    Some unintended humor from Barry Arrogant:   Quote Professional objectivity is as important as it is difficult to maintain, because sometimes the best advice a lawyer can give his client is "give up you are going to lose." Particularly when the lawyer is Barry. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,06:03    Which of these best describes the state of IDC 'theory',  (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?): I II III IV V It's not big, it's not clever, but at least mine are grounded in reality.... -------------- "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

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,06:20    All they're doing now is copying the anti-IDists.  Well, Denyse's truly ignorant rant about the problems cooperation are supposed to pose for evolution is a copy of themselves and their tardity, but I think Dembski's bored with that flapdoodle by now. So the Black Knight is put on UD, as if somehow it's a new argument.  We don't know we're defeated, blah blah blah, when of course we've used the Black Knight for some time to deal with the fact that no matter how many times creationism/ID is defeated Dumbski blathers about Waterloos, the "long decline of Darwinism", or some such idiotic cant. Oh, and biologists can't consider challenges to Darwinism because...., oh god, do we have to listen to him again (no, I barely ever read anything of Dembski's clear through--it's too predictable and stupid)? He apparently knows so little about science that he doesn't know that younger biologists (and some older ones) would jump at a new model having high explanatory ability, so that they could make their marks as soon as possible.  How long did it actually take for QM and relativity to have a strong presence in physics?  Not long, despite the fact that the father of QM was quite opposed to accepting QM as reality, and the great Maxwell was opposed to relativistic concepts (creationists like to claim Maxwell, not noting that he opposed excellent developments of his own huge accomplishments in physics, and had no real expertise in biology). What is more, surely any number of physicists, mathematicians, and biochemists, would be happy to take up a simple explanation left untouched by biologists, particularly one requiring almost no biological knowledge like ID.  And despite the fact that some of the dullards in ID are indeed those, the vast majority of physicists and biochemists (philosophically competent mathematicians probably claim no expert opinion--unlike Dembski and Berlinski) are as opposed to ID as the biologists are. Of course the screed against the experts is in reaction to the fact that virtually no real biologists, apart from Moonie Wells, agree with his BS.  His pathetic little bunch of non-experts has to be portrayed as better than the "biased" experts.  So he rants, demonstrating that he isn't better than anybody, at least not in this area. Glen D -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,06:30    Quote 4.  We’re in stage V, most certainly. As long as we can’t offer a logical proof for ID, the materialist will continue to retreat ever more deeply into the depths of ignorance and pure chance–and mock and taunt us all the while. The Black Knight is an outstanding analogy for our situation! Comment by crandaddy — July 23, 2006 @ 2:12 pm [/quote] So why not come up with a valid proof for ID then? -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,07:28    Over at the latest piece by "Moderator Denyse", our own Chris Hyland has the first comment, where he says Quote To change this ID needs to start doing good science, which will probably involve some people breaking the sincerity rule, but if they produce good science then they’ll get away with it. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1350#comments The responses? Quote “To change this ID needs to start doing good science”. This statement is bollocks. What I’ve seen time and again is a complete non-examination (or misrepresentation) of the actual science in the publication and a sharp dismissal of the scientist as practicing ‘bad science’ simply for critiquing the supernatural powers of almighty evolution in support of ID. At this point absolutely nothing put forward by an ID’st will be regarded as ‘good science’ simply because it is at loggerheads with the ruling theory of the day. Outstanding work and scientific insight is lambasted and misconstrued because it doesn’t tow the monkey line. The only constructive/ non-adhominem critiques I’ve seen of ID work is by Michael Ruse. If you need examples simply do a quick search for reviews of Behe’s black box or Dembski’s No free lunch. Evolutionary critics don’t even TRY to properly understand the arguments and see the point the writers make but endeavor to discredit the work forthwith. Comment by lucID — July 24, 2006 @ 9:41 am How dare you actually ask us to do science! Quote I still don’t understand what the anti-IDists want IDists to do- For example do they want someone like Dr Behe or Minnich to go into a lab and design a bacterial flagellum? Isn’t it “good science” to make observations and (at least) attempt to understand what is being observed? To me science is our search for the truth, ie the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge. Therefore it would be “piss-poor” science to exclude ID just because, especially given what is accepted… Comment by Joseph — July 24, 2006 @ 9:55 am No thanks, we would rather just cherry pick other scientists' work and b*tch and moan about being excluded, even though we don't actually do any work.

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,07:51    Quote (argystokes @ July 21 2006,22:31) Did Dembski change the thread title, or did I just notice the term "unwitting?" I don't remember that term being there before, but I'm sure my memory is failing me.  I'm sure that Dembski would never try to sneak in a stealth change. -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,08:16    Re "practicing ‘bad science’ simply for critiquing the supernatural powers of almighty evolution in support of ID." The who whatting how with huh?

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,08:44    A partial list of words I never want to hear again from IDiots.  They simply like to show us they know how to say them--screw actually knowing what they mean and/or applying them correctly: 1.  ad hominem (I personally think they should from now on use "ad homonim" 2.  strawman 3.  science 4.  is 5.  activist judge 6.  model They can, if they want, continue to use the phrase "Monty Python's Black Knight". -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,08:51    Quote I still don’t understand what the anti-IDists want IDists to do- For example do they want someone like Dr Behe or Minnich to go into a lab and design a bacterial flagellum? In a funny way, this is actually the only thing in Joseph's post that makes sense. The inescapable central notion in ID is the nice big Judeo-Christian god in the sky who did everything, and how could one test for 'goddidit' in a lab? The lesson Joseph regrettably takes away from that is that ID deserves to be exempted from research and the whole 'good science' thing, but it should still be considered at least an equal science. In other words, it shouldn't have to do anything science does, but it should still be *thought of* as science, called science, and accorded at least as much respect as science. And if you don't agree, you're a wicked atheist who's destroying society and going to he11. Have to admit, our enemies are not getting any smarter...   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,09:34    Egads!  I go away to Canada to a meeting for a week ("proper" science.  Well, statisics anyway).  And now I'm back I find out I've missed all of the fun. *sniff* Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,09:38    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1350#comment-49373 Quote ofro wrote: “It would be great if ID-inclined scientists would latch onto ideas generated by the Darwinists’ findings. Search the (peer-reviewed) research literature for new principles that will convince the establishment. The PNAS paper you quoted is a perfect example: there were no experiments that required extensive research funding.” Meta-analysis certainly does have its place in origins biology, and science in general. Meta-analysis doesn’t truly drive science forward though. Secondly, for a meta based paper to be published usually requires that one has a good scientific reputation in the respective field. Not just anyone can compose a meta analysis and get it published. The authors of this PNAS paper had the support of Harvards Marc Kirschner, a member of the National Academy. Secondly, I don’t know where you get the idea that this research didn’t require “extensive funding.” Grad students have to be paid, the costs of publications have to be paid, and it’s likely that a portion of the PI’s salary is dependent on grant money. In fact, the paper very clearly states: “We thank the Ben May Charitable Trust and the Tauber Fund for grant support.” So this research doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It was funded by a couple of different organizations and has the support of a National Academy member. Instead, the authors researched the literature, or, to quiote them, “by manual inspection of the literature, we have compiled a list of such “responsive backup circuits” in a diverse list of species”. I am still waiting. Comment by mattison0922 — July 24, 2006 @ 2:16 pm Whine, whine, whine...oh, no one will fund us in our efforts to do ID science. What about the DI?  How come they don't use any of their vast funds to do research instead of PR? Oh yeah, and what about the Templeton Foundation which offered them money to do research on ID?  Oh, I forgot, they couldn't actually do any research, so they didn't get any funding.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,11:14    Quote   Quote Dembski’s inference of design is then undermined by the recent realization that there are many naturally-occurring tools available to build simple computational processes. To mention just four, consider the recent work on quantum computation [42], DNA computation [47], chemical computing [55, 89, 74], and molecular self assembly [79]. Furthermore, it is now known that even very simple computational models, such as Conway’s game of Life [3], Langton’s ant [26], and sand piles [33] are universal, and hence compute anything that is computable. Finally, in the cellular automaton model, relatively simple replicators are possible [5]. The phrase “naturally occurring” was being equivocated here. What do you think when you hear the phrase, “naturally occurring”? Is it consistent with the way Shallit uses the phrase, “naturally occurring”? Wesley, the bit about "quantum computation" being a natural tool (cue jokes), and probably some of the others, is a little counter-intuitive to me. Can you elaborate on that?  The appearance(?) that someone at  UD might have a valid point is disturbing me somewhat.  Has this has already been dealt with somewhere?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,11:48    Church lady writes... http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1349#comment-49370 Quote From moderator Denyse: As I mentioned earlier, this thread will be much more fruitful if commenters actually SEE the Penguins film. That is not a reflection on the quality of previous comments. My point is that if you have not seen the film, you will not understand why a number of people pegged it as suporting ID rather than Darwinism, so your comments will tend to go off track into the behavior of a variety of other species, which may have nothing to do with the specific Penguins issue. Comment by O'Leary — July 24, 2006 @ 1:27 pm I did done the boldeding myself. EEEEeeeeee. Yes looking at other species is far too scientific and may bring insights we don't wont to see. They are 110% specifically complexified like that there fracterial blagella. Praise the lord. All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful: The Lord God made them all. Each little flower that opens, Each little bird that sings, He made their glowing colors, He made their tiny wings. -------------- "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

Bebbo Posts: 161 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,12:32    Quote (GCT @ July 24 2006,10:34) From the latest Black Knight thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1348   Quote 3.  If we consider the body as being Philosophical Naturalism, the head as the evolutionary Media, and the leg as the surpression of scientific evidence against Darwinism in public schools, then we can say that we are in stage IV. Darwinism is not “officialy” defeated yet, but, just like the Knight in picture IV, it’s just a matter of time until the scientific evidence “chops away” the other leg (surpression of evidence, AKA “We don’t allow for critical analysis of the theory of Evolution”). Something we need is a “visual mark”. Communism was “officialy” dead when the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Saddam was “officialy” rejected by the Iraqis when they brought down his statue. We still need something like that to declare Darwinism dead. I sugest that the British Christians remove Darwin’s body from Westminster Abbey and put his body somewhere else. Saddly, since there is a 4-5% church attendency in England, and since many churchian leaders are “burning incence to Darwin”, I don’t think that will happen any time soon. Comment by Mats — July 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am Yeah, let's pull up old Chuck's remains and throw it in the ocean.  That's just like tearing down the Berlin wall. I sent a response pointing out that we don't disinter the dead just because someone thinks their scientific theory was wrong. Apparently pointing out the obvious was more than they could stomach and my comment never appeared.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,13:11    Quote (Bebbo @ July 24 2006,17:32) Quote (GCT @ July 24 2006,10:34) From the latest Black Knight thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1348     Quote 3.  If we consider the body as being Philosophical Naturalism, the head as the evolutionary Media, and the leg as the surpression of scientific evidence against Darwinism in public schools, then we can say that we are in stage IV. Darwinism is not “officialy” defeated yet, but, just like the Knight in picture IV, it’s just a matter of time until the scientific evidence “chops away” the other leg (surpression of evidence, AKA “We don’t allow for critical analysis of the theory of Evolution”). Something we need is a “visual mark”. Communism was “officialy” dead when the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Saddam was “officialy” rejected by the Iraqis when they brought down his statue. We still need something like that to declare Darwinism dead. I sugest that the British Christians remove Darwin’s body from Westminster Abbey and put his body somewhere else. Saddly, since there is a 4-5% church attendency in England, and since many churchian leaders are “burning incence to Darwin”, I don’t think that will happen any time soon. Comment by Mats — July 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am Yeah, let's pull up old Chuck's remains and throw it in the ocean.  That's just like tearing down the Berlin wall. I sent a response pointing out that we don't disinter the dead just because someone thinks their scientific theory was wrong. Apparently pointing out the obvious was more than they could stomach and my comment never appeared. Well, that answers the question as to whether the new regime at UD would change the censorship policies that DaveScot followed... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Pages: (1000) < ... 166 167 168 169 170 [171] 172 173 174 175 176 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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