Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::UnReasonable Kansans thread

Posted: April 09 2007,18:22

Uh oh, this thread's doing the CGH thing... page doesn't turn over at the right time.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,18:24

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,12:20)

I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.

Of course not.

Some, like Dembski, are dishonest evasive deceptive liars.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 09 2007,18:55

Quote

What interested and impressed me was the science in his book, Finding Darwin's God. However, the last two chapters I did not get at all. I don't understand where his religious beliefs come from. I have no idea where they come from and I don't presume to know; it was, frankly, gobbledygook but at least they don't come from a vehement rejection of science that I've seen demonstrated by other people.

I've read his book as well, and I found it extremely lacking in evidence for macroevolution or common descent. He also made grand claims that ID had been debunked and that the there existed evidence that the flagellum evolved. If that's a fact, we wouldn't see scientists still writing papers trying to dismantle ID.

But, your quote above is exactly my point. His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well. So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.” And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology?

As for Wes' paper, I truly am not an expert on the EF and truth be told I’m not terribly interested in discussing it. I believe that you people have a very legitimate point. ~At this point in time~, it is still difficult to pinpoint exactly what is too complex to have evolved through evolutionary mechanisms. But, at the same time, there is such vast complexity in nature that it is equally difficult to provide explanations of evolutionary pathways that explain what we observe in nature, not to mention providing empirical evidence that supports common descent.

I certainly support further research in attempting to answer these difficult issues in regard to evolution. I do not support replacing evolution with ID because, in my mind, it’s a completely different concept. Truth be told, I think the two concepts should be considered hand in hand. I think it merely boils down to philosophical arguments that prevent people from rejecting either concept.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 09 2007,19:06

George wrote:

Quote

Theistic evolutionist here. And yes, I do base my belief in God purely on faith. What else is there? I'd be very curious to hear about concrete evidence about God. I've yet to hear anything convincing to tell you the truth.

Certainly, in the end, there is an element of faith that that leads a person to believe or reject God. But, there are certainly lines of evidence that one can consider when choosing to accept or reject specific faith beliefs.

Question: What kind of TE are you? You mentioned "God"... Christian? Jew? And, ~why~ do you adhere to your belief in God? If you base your beliefs "purely on faith" what led you to accepting that faith? Feelings? How do you know your feelings are correct? Do you care one way or the other? Do you believe in specific things about God, or do you just believe there is a "God" out there somewhere ultimately responsible for your existence?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,19:57

I can't agree with argy, ftk. I think you are absolutely, 100%, a dyed in the wool lying for Jesus, dishonest, slightly-dangerous-if-allowed-to-make-policy-decisions type.

Is it any wonder that I think that? What are we supposed to think about people who:

1. Say they discuss science but never do
2. Avoid every question of substance ever asked of them
3. Always talk about what they did--SOMEWHERE ELSE
4. Always claim that facts are negotiable?

Seriously, aren't you always claiming that liberal atheists are the ones who think everything is fine, just as long as everyone's happy?

Come on, it's conservatives that are always going on about how facts can be interpretted in different ways. The evidence points in all directions, it's inconclusive...blah.

That's bullshit and you know it.

So, here are questions even easier than what I asked you before. I don't want you to discuss theories, or even science, really. This is what i want:

I want you, FTK, to list 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology. Just type out the facts, no interpretation. I want to see if you know what a fact is. If youmake an interesting list, we might be able to discuss it.

--------------
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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,20:46

I had to boot a comment to the Bathroom Wall.

Sorry, but the rule here is, everbody has to give each other the minimal respect one would find in a college classroom.

edited to add: And blipey, you tone it down a notch too.

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 09 2007,21:05

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)

FtK, if we showed up at your door, out of the blue, with a freshman biology test, what do you think you'd score?

That is exactly how I feel. In the days of google, it is hard to test anyone's knowledge in these forums. But a short essay test, given away from the computer, would do wonders toward dispelling the legend-in-her-own-mind myth that FtK has even a minimal understanding of biology, evolution, and science.

Based on the two times I quizzed her and DT, using thought problems with no history on the creo/ID websites, she would fail a freshman biology test on evolution. But that's OK, because, as she tells us repeatedly, she really isn't here to talk about science.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Robert O'Brien

Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,21:09

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)

(every time Davetard starts babbling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I imagine showing up at his door with a test from my sophomore thermo class)

At the very least, you should provide DaveScot with a suitable book. (I like this one.)

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,21:17

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 09 2007,22:09)

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)

(every time Davetard starts babbling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I imagine showing up at his door with a test from my sophomore thermo class)

At the very least, you should provide DaveScot with a suitable book. (I like this one.)

I liked this one. If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.

Robert O'Brien

Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,21:22

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)

I liked this one. If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.

I am not familiar with that text. I think this one is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,21:25

UD's and Davetard's comments about the Second Law have been so hilariously boneheaded and clueless to anyone who knows any physics that I had to go share them with Dave Heddle, whom I would never talk to ordinarily.

By the way, looks like his blog is going the way of the ID journals. There hasn't been any activity there in a while.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 09 2007,21:27

Blipey,

I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you...

You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance. You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*.

True to my promise, I did just that. I have always kept my word when I've said I was going to post about something. You said, if I ever did post something about it, you'd be interested in discussing what I wrote.

But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about. Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either. What difference would it make if I did that? Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else. You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me?

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues. Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent. That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.

And, Doc Bill, I'm not even sure how to respond to that crap you threw out there. Are you okay? Ya sound a little unbalanced.

btw, Stevestory, thanks for sending that one to the bathroom wall.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,21:29

Quote

His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well. So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.” And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology?

Because he mixed it up with quantum theory, that's why, and I didn't agree with his statement that the statistical nature of the position/momentum of subatomic particles meant that "we can never know some things about the universe." In fact that's one thing that we can know about the universe, that as one measures the position of a subatomic particle with more accuracy the momentum becomes less able to be accurately measured. It's something that we indeed do know. It's weird, but still an objective statement about phenomena.

Everyone I met who was deeply religious and who accepted evolution always hedged about the facts in some way, caricatured it, and he never did. And he doesn't come off as judgemental. I felt like I could talk to the guy without getting the standard horrified response that I do.

I don't believe his religion any more than I believe anyone else's. I can argue about theology from many theological points of view. I can also argue about literature from many theoretical points of view - that doesn't mean I need to believe that Little Dorrit actually existed once.

I know about theology because it's a part of anthropology. I'm interested in people, not gods, and I've met a lot of different people. The more you study different religions, the more inseparable it is from the material circumstances from which it arose, and the more it appears to be an invention of the human mind, like literature.

After reading his paper I believe that Dembski is well educated in theology as well, and I certainly don't believe in his religion, either.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,21:31

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 09 2007,22:22)

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)

I liked this one. If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.

I am not familiar with that text. I think this one is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.

Stat Mech, I've only read Huang, and I understood less than half of it. If I went to grad school I'd probably make another effort. I might use Landau and Lifshitz though, everyone raves about those guys.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 09 2007,21:36

Quote

That is exactly how I feel. In the days of google, it is hard to test anyone's knowledge in these forums. But a short essay test, given away from the computer, would do wonders toward dispelling the legend-in-her-own-mind myth that FtK has even a minimal understanding of biology, evolution, and science.

Based on the two times I quizzed her and DT, using thought problems with no history on the creo/ID websites, she would fail a freshman biology test on evolution. But that's OK, because, as she tells us repeatedly, she really isn't here to talk about science.

For the sake of argument, Dave, let's assume that I know absolutely nothing about *anything*. How's that work for you?

Now, you teach me. You start wherever you need to in order for me to understand why macroevolution is a ~fact~. You can act as though you're talking to a 1st grader if that makes you happy, but teach me something instead of endlessly telling everyone that I'm a half baked moron.

I await for my first biology lesson..

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,21:36

Quote

Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent. That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

Well, we've been around the bush once with GULO. So maybe this would be a good time for endogenous retroviruses. I'll have time to discuss those tomorrow, but for an introduction, it's one of Theobald's 29+ that has been referenced a couple of times on this thread.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

skeptic

Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,21:42

Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused. I missed soemthing over the last few months. Was AFDave banned? Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name? What's the website that keeps getting referenced? Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,21:44

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:25)

By the way, looks like his blog is going the way of the ID journals. There hasn't been any activity there in a while.

No surprise there. Who wants to get preached at all the time? (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,21:46

Quote (skeptic @ April 09 2007,19:42)

Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused. I missed soemthing over the last few months. Was AFDave banned? Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name? What's the website that keeps getting referenced? Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.

Well, it might be AFDave part II, except this time Dave's a ~~MILF~~ nice young lady.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,22:02

FtK:

Quote

Blipey,

I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you...

I am also sorry I feel this way. I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious. I truly find you to be neither, and that is a sad thing.

Quote

You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance. You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*.

While I certainly have left many comments on your blog, I believe that around 70 percent of them had actual content. You see, that's really the point. You complain that science in general is censoring the truth of ID, yet find no problem censoring things you simply don't agree with--regardless of the scientific or philosophical relevance of said things.

And we'll never really know will we? If you'd do the hnest thing and really discuss the issues, people would see my 70 percent and the other 30 percent would never have been written.

As for the Hume bit, I'll certainly comment on that; I haven't read that particular post as yet. I will; we'll see if you let me comment on it.

Quote

But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about. Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either. What difference would it make if I did that? Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else. You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me?

I do believe you know nothing about either (and I don't feel I'm alone in this, either on this board or in the world in general). But, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show me otherwise. Just post something that is factual or that you hink is factual and we'd take it from there. If I agree with what you post I'd tell you. If you really, truly, actually posted something that you thought was factual and I thought not, I'd tell you my objection. Then we could discuss it. I'm wrong a lot, but I generally thank the people that tell me I'm wrong when they show me.

You have no interest in showing other people they are wrong. You have no interest in learning about where you might be wrong. You have an interest in telling people they are wrong and telling others that you are right. Telling and demonstrting are different things.

By your actions you show that you have no interest in demonstrating. You come right out and tell people that you don't want to discuss things; it is the very first thing you volunteer. Am I supposed to take you seriously, or should I be allowed to wait until you do something serious?

Quote

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues. Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent. That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

You certainly have made many comments. Very few of them having anything to do with science. Your questions are of belief and faith and not of science. It's hard to carry on a discussion when your level of understanding is an unknown. While it would be possible to start at the beginning, many of the actual, working scientists on this board go through this all the time with AFDave, Paley, etc. Forgive them if they don't want to start at the beginning if they don't have to. But now that you've volunteered to start in 1st grade, it will be easier.

Quote

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.

Interesting. This is what I and a lot of others have been asking you to do for some time now. All of a sudden it's my fault that we aren't discussing science. Nice. Well, I accept, if you're actually willing to discuss science finally.

--------------
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

Posted: April 09 2007,22:13

Quote

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues. Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent. That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.

Excuse me? ? ?

'Lay off'?

Um, up to now, you have explicitly refused to discuss science in any way. Does this now mean you've had a change of heart? You're now ready to start?

(And, uh, 'discussing science' does not consist of you making unsupported statements and then ignoring all our counterevidence. Right?)

--------------
"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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,22:18

Quote (skeptic @ April 09 2007,21:42)

Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused. I missed soemthing over the last few months. Was AFDave banned? Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name? What's the website that keeps getting referenced? Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.

FTK and AFDave are not the same person. Imagine AFDave's beliefs crossed with Dave Scot's personality, and put it in the body of a woman who thinks she's 'protecting children'. That's FTK.

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,22:29

If she wants to argue against common descent, she's taking on not merely the whole scientific community, but much of the ID community. What did Dembski's webmaster say about the matter?

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I’d ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don’t have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I’m going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It’s simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 09 2007,22:44

Quote

I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious.

From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you.

As for the rest of your post, let me clue you in to something. I did not enter this forum looking to discuss science with any of you. I don't know why you even keep engaging in discussion with me.

I found out that Richard had started a whole freakin' thread dedicated to ripping me apart. Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true. It's irritating as ####. So, I popped in to give Dave a piece of my mind.

Sigh...

I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this. I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again. ~I know how frustrating that can be~.

So, I’ll go research the topic on my own and perhaps post something about it at my blog at some point. (That doesn't mean I'll write a post on it *tomorrow*, Blipey, so don't come to my blog nagging for it.)

BTW, Blipey, if you post at my blog, you seriously need to change your attitude. I won’t post comments like the ones I’ve seen you put through to date. Take a pill or something before you start putting down your thoughts so they don’t come out so nasty.

I don’t mind you people posting comments at my blog, but just try to be nice about how your respond. Dave was doing ~really~ well there for a while until he flew the coop. I just can’t deal with people treating me like shit on a consistent basis.

And, Dave, if your only objective for commenting at my blog is to find ammunition to state endlessly that I "know nothing about science", than just quit reading my stuff and save yourself the agony. My blog's not terribly popular so it's not as if what I say is going to have any affect on this debate whatsoever. Probably 90% of my readers are pro-Darwin anyway. So, just relax and quit worrying about proving my ignorance.

Have a nice evening everyone.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,23:07

Quote

As for the rest of your post, let me clue you in to something. I did not enter this forum looking to discuss science with any of you. I don't know why you even keep engaging in discussion with me.

Quote

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues. Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent. That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.

QED.

--------------
"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

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: April 09 2007,23:32

FTK:

Quote

From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you.

Intersting. Completely ignored the part where I said I was wrong a lot. In fact, I'll give you a link to a place where I was wrong--admitted it, and apologized. Joe Gallien likes to bring it up a lot. Which is fine, I was wrong and it should be brought up lest I forger every once in a while. You see, I admitted to Joe G that I was wrong and he irritates me much more than you do.

So, go here at Joe G's blog. A place where Blipey was wrong.

And the point of my griping about the Hume thing was your two-faced view of the issue. You often complain about people attacking IDers because of simple disagreement, or lack of evidence or whatnot. You posted an entire screed about Hume in which you presented no data. You just told us what an idiot you thought he was while not backing it up. That was the substance of every single one of my Hume posts, bar none.

FTK:

[QUOTE]Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true.[QUOTE]

What exactly has been "not true"? Aside from the obvious sparring with Rich contained solely on this thread? It seems that Rich had started a thread to call attention to your lack of a grasp on things science. So, given that you came in not wanting to discuss any science, how exactly did you plan on clearing up this little issue?

--------------
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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 09 2007,23:41

FtK seems really stressed out. I think what we need to tell FtK is, she needs to come to grips with not knowing science. She needs to take a deep breath and accept that she doesn't know much about these topics, and that's okay, because most people don't, and she needs to recognize that if you argue with the experts it's going to take a lot of work and you're almost certainly going to lose, and there are more productive ways to spend one's time. I don't know anything about Thai cooking. Because of that, I don't spend a lot of time in Thai restaurant kitchens arguing with the chef about how to make Peanut sauce. It wouldn't be a productive thing for me to do. It would annoy him, it would annoy me, and it wouldn't accomplish anything. And it would get me all stressed out, just like FtK is stressed out about this stuff.

Just chill out FtK. Do something productive. Nobody says you have to try to single-handedly bring down the last century of science, and it's not working anyway.

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: April 10 2007,00:17

That's why I suggested that she pull back and just read the material. I'm not an expert so I go on the internet because practically nobody that I know wants to engage the material at this level. But going on the internet and yakking requires a lot of reading, and it doesn't hurt to actually participate, such as working on a dig.

The best advice I ever got about learning other people's religions was from a Muslim who told me to learn about religion from people who practice their religion, not just from reading the books. I think that's good advice about science as well, but when I brought up Miller I felt like she was putting him down. I don't get it.

Oh, well, I just realized that I have less than a month to go before I'll be in the Galapagos. I'll blog about it when I get back and everyone's invited. Okay, Ftk?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

creeky belly

Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006