RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 410 411 412 413 414 [415] 416 417 418 419 420 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,00:21   

hey!  Your picture has some problems.

how come WD40 has no weenus, but DT does?

..and why does that sound like a punchline should follow?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
CloneBoySA



Posts: 9
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,00:48   

Hi all,

This is completely off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread, just want to ask if anyone else is having any problems accessing Panda's Thumb? I assume not, since there is no topic about any problems here.

Thanks in advance,
David

EDIT: Never mind, I see it again...

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,02:44   

Quote
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:...


from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,03:59   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 22 2007,02:44)
Quote
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:...


from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

From that link..

Quote
As you can see, youtube.com videos have raised Darwinism to a new low.


is that better than being lowered to a new high?

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

  
fusilier



Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,05:12   

Errm, if DT wants to start a chemical plant in the bilge of his houseboat - he'd better be careful.  The local drug crime taskforce might see those purchases in a different light.

fusilier, up from lurk-mode for the second time in a month!
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,05:54   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 22 2007,02:44)
   
Quote
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:...


from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

I notice that Borne quotes an article (Hellish Holland) from the Society of Saint Pius X, an organization started by Marcel Lefebvre, the archbishop who was excommunicated by the Catholic church for extreme naughtiness.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,06:27   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 22 2007,02:44)
 
Quote
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:...


from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

Let's review the powerful scientific tools with which the stupIDs intend to fashion their "renewal" of science:

1) Youtube videos.
2) Flatulent flash animations.
3) "Street theater" including fraudulent accusations of racism and reporting scientists to Homeland Security.
4) Press releases.
5) Lots of talking about god.
6) Lots of lying about ID being about god.
7) Cheesy poofs.

Am I missing anything?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,06:42   

gpuccio        
Quote
Let’s suppose that we observe only one sequence, and that it is composed of 500 ones. Then:

A random sequence such as 11111 is just as rare as 10010 or 11000. The reason why a long string of 1's is a suspicion of design is because we know the general properties of coins and that humans have a predilection for order. However, atoms are not coins. A salt crystal is the equivalent of all 1's. Other atoms naturally arrange themselves into all sorts of complex structures.

gpuccio        
Quote
This is in fact the basis for pointing out why though it is logically and physically possible for the molecules of oxygen in a room to all rush to one end, without intelligent intervention etc, it is so maximally improbable that the relevant fluctuations on that scale are simply not observed.

Not at all — e.g., if the "room" is highly accelerated or in a strong gravitational field. We call the latter an "atmosphere".

gpuccio        
Quote
suppose you have to bet real money…

Then you would be easy to take. Just for fun, here are some decimal digits. Are they specified or random? If you can't find a specification, does that "make them random"?

9380952572010654858632788
6593615338182796823030195
2035301852968995773622599
4138912497217752834791315

How about these?

02100333122220202011220300203103

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,06:43   

DaveScot recently popped in to BA's blog, where they've been debating over whether a YEC should be allowed to be given a PhD:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog....t-96081

"To be awarded a PhD one needs to demonstrate understanding of the widely accepted views, and probably at least be familiar with the minority views, and be able to work within the widely accepted paradigm. One needn’t believe it. All science is tentative and anyone who doesn’t know that probably shouldn’t be awarded a PhD. I take it you don’t have one."

He doesn't make it clear exactly who he's responding to.  He sounds almost reasonable, doesn't he?      ???

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,07:01   

O'Leary          
Quote
From moderator Denyse ... This is your first warning from me, realpc.

I don't even wholly agree with realpc, but Gee Willikers.

realpc          
Quote
Evolutionary psychology is NOT based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, but on evolution theory in general.

I'm not sure that realpc has made a clear distinction, but evolutionary psychology is based on the biological and evolutionary origins of behavior, including common descent and selection. Darwin discussed the evolution of instinct in Origin of Species.

O'Leary          
Quote
If the number of common ancestors is small in relation to the whole population - as we are assured is a common situation - averages regarding behaviour cannot be used as a predictor of selective action - any more than you can call the next US election by finding out how your repair man plans to vote.

Bad example. We can reasonably predict the behavior of millions of voters by sampling just a few hundred. In any case, ancestral populations may or may not be large. Some behaviors are clearly instinctual and variations in instinctual behavior can be observed.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,08:54   

PaV  
Quote
Here’s a definition of “specificiation” in plain English: “The right-ordering of a complex, highly improbable object.”

jerry  
Quote
What does “right-ordering” mean?

PaV  
Quote
“Right-ordering” means that the relationship among the various parts form the correct pattern.

No circularity here.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,09:01   

Do We Drop A Dime On DaveScott?

Orac (A real MD and cancer oncologist)has a blog at Science Blog, and has @ 10 recent posts going back and forth with our favorite Tardster DaveScot about the efficacy of an untried cancer treatment DCA.

Dave has really jumped on the altie-med bandwagon, no surprise, and in his usual ham-handed approach, has pissed the Doctor, and a lot of people off.  

In Orac's latest post, he links to all his previous posts, and also to the FDA Fraud alert website.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolen....ess.php

FDA Fraud Site:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/buyonline/buyonlineform.htm

So... Moral Dilemma time...

If we drop a dime, DaveScott might go to The Big House 5-10 years, but cancer patients might be spared a potentially dangerous chemical that Dave is pushing.

If DaveScot goes to prison, UD goes stale, the Tard level goes way down, and we only have Bill and Denyse to kick around. They are both idiots, but not in the same Idiot league as Dave.

Help me out here,  please post your thoughts.  

Do we "Drop a Dime on Dave"™,
or Do We Love It So and Can't Live Without The Tard?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,09:11   

It's their side that reports people to homeland security, etc. Don't lower yourselves, fellas.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,09:29   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2007,09:11)
It's their side that reports people to homeland security, etc. Don't lower yourselves, fellas.

Richard - Thanks, and good point.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,10:36   

kairofocus:  
Quote
If we see a room in which all the oxygen molecules are at one end, we infer intelligent agency.
If we build a room 50 miles high, all of the air will be at the floor and none at the ceiling.  Intelligent agency!!

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,10:42   

franky172
Quote
That the tree of life is “messy” at the bottom lends credence to the notion that horizontal gene transfer played a much more significant role in pre-cellular life than was previously thought. In fact, it appears that the basics of inheritance and genetics as originally understood by Mendel et al. do not follow standard assumptions at these pre-biotic levels.

Patrick
Quote
1. Darwinism is true.
2. The data doesn’t correspond to our expectations.
3. Thus HGT MUST be capable of rendering the picture we see.

Let me help you.
1. Mendelian genetics is a theory of inheritance that applies broadly in biology
2. The data concerning the evolutionary origin of cellular life contradicts the expectations of Mendelian genetics.
3. In light of the evidence, we must modify genetic theory to account for the observations.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,10:45   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,07:42)
gpuccio        
Quote
Let’s suppose that we observe only one sequence, and that it is composed of 500 ones. Then:

A random sequence such as 11111 is just as rare as 10010 or 11000. The reason why a long string of 1's is a suspicion of design is because we know the general properties of coins and that humans have a predilection for order. However, atoms are not coins. A salt crystal is the equivalent of all 1's. Other atoms naturally arrange themselves into all sorts of complex structures.

gpuccio          
Quote
This is in fact the basis for pointing out why though it is logically and physically possible for the molecules of oxygen in a room to all rush to one end, without intelligent intervention etc, it is so maximally improbable that the relevant fluctuations on that scale are simply not observed.

Not at all — e.g., if the "room" is highly accelerated or in a strong gravitational field. We call the latter an "atmosphere".

gpuccio          
Quote
suppose you have to bet real money…

Then you would be easy to take. Just for fun, here are some decimal digits. Are they specified or random? If you can't find a specification, does that "make them random"?

9380952572010654858632788
6593615338182796823030195
2035301852968995773622599
4138912497217752834791315

How about these?

02100333122220202011220300203103

Last year I thought of a cute contest. Post 10 strings of 10 digits on the internet. 5 of the strings would be designed, maybe they're, say, bits of machine code or from an mp3 file or something. 5 of them would be copied from one of those old books of random numbers which have been generated by a physical device. Then you ask all the Intelligent Design 'theorists' to distinguish the designed ones from the random ones.

Problem is, I can't decide if it would be funny or annoying to read the essays afterward about how the contest was BS, because the act of typing the random strings infused them with some CSI and blah blah blah...

   
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,10:50   

Rebuffed, rejected, and no longer welcome to nuzzle at the hairy teat of Intelligent Design that is UD, I slope dejectedly, like a newly minted drunk to the gutter, into this forlorn forum. My efforts as the resident atheist on UD failed to seduce the Stormtroopers of the New Dawn of Science, though it was fun seeing how many 'Tards' I could get past the never-vigilant Dave.

But let me introduce myself. I have a certified IQ somewhere north of an ox but I carry it concealed. I was taught to think by the world's most efficient brain-killing machine, a Baptist Seminary. I live in an ivory houseboat and women scream at me that they want me to have their babies, or at least endure some comparable pain. I am a self-made bankrupt, courtesy of an option to leave Dell which friends, colleagues and my lawyer urged me to accept before charges were filed. I keep up with the cutting-edge of science by reading the 'Strange But True' section of Readers' Digest and hard-core colouring books.

Ah Dave! How I shall miss you! How I resent the way you ignore my comments, even when I don't poke unsubtle sarcasm into your eye! To compress so much wit, knowledge, and experience within the confines of a mere human skull suggests an astonishing cerebral molarity. Your humility, your understated learning, your natural sense of fairness – well, what can I say? And then, there are those manly curves...

It was a pity we didn't pursue the possibility of the Theologically Attuned Radio Detector, or Transcendent Administrative – Religious Dialogue, or the other TARDs you were kind enough to let me adorn UD with. Not to mention Bustenhalter's Front Loading (The Germans usually just abbreviate it to 'BH', Dave). And I hope your contributors will continue to see themselves as belonging to the ID Tardis – it's such a fitting metaphor.

Dave, I just wish I could drop a penny into the well of your ignorance and wait to hear it go





           *plop!*

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,10:56   

great_ape:  
Quote
He suggests the complete works of Shakespeare are both specified and complex.

Ah, but here Dembski says that if "METHINKS..." is the outcome of an evolutionary algorithm, then it has a complexity of zero:  
Quote
It follows that Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm, by vastly increasing the probability of getting the target sequence, vastly decreases the complexity inherent in that sequence. As the sole possibility that Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm can attain, the target sequence in fact has minimal complexity (i.e., the probability is 1 and the complexity, as measured by the usual information measure, is 0).

So if I hand great_ape the complete works of Shakespeare, he can't tell me whether they has CSI or not unless I tell him how they were generated.  CSI is useless for determining design because you have to know the causal story in order to determine whether something has CSI.

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,10:56   

Quote
Problem is, I can't decide if it would be funny or annoying to read the essays afterward about how the contest was BS, because the act of typing the random strings infused them with some CSI and blah blah blah...
They'll say that they couldnt detect any of the strings to be designed because what they claim is they dont get any false positives and that designers can mimic random strings. What you need to do is get something that looks designed that wasn't.
Quote
So if I hand great_ape the complete works of Shakespeare, he can't tell me whether it has CSI or not unless I tell him how they were generated.  CSI is useless for determining design because you have to know the causal story in order to determine whether something has CSI.
Thats the problem, the complexity in CSI is low probability. So if you cant calculate the probability its a bit useless. You will see in discussions relating to the biology the definition of complexity tends to change.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:04   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,11:42)
Patrick  
Quote
1. Darwinism is true.
2. The data doesn’t correspond to our expectations.
3. Thus HGT MUST be capable of rendering the picture we see.

Patrick took a glimmer of truth and slathered it with tard. When you have an extremely well-confirmed theory like evolution, you don't throw it away the moment some contradictory data come along. Somewhere out there this week a student will do a repeat of Millikan's oil drop experiments, and calculate the charge of the electron to be 2.0 × 10-19 coloumbs. Unless he's a complete idiot, he's not going to then say, Wow, I guess the textbook was wrong by 25%!

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:06   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 22 2007,10:50)
But let me introduce myself. I have a certified IQ somewhere north of an ox but I carry it concealed. I was taught to think by the world's most efficient brain-killing machine, a Baptist Seminary. I live in an ivory houseboat and women scream at me that they want me to have their babies, or at least endure some comparable pain. I am a self-made bankrupt, courtesy of an option to leave Dell which friends, colleagues and my lawyer urged me to accept before charges were filed. I keep up with the cutting-edge of science by reading the 'Strange But True' section of Readers' Digest and hard-core colouring books.

Amadan -

Well written young man!  I don't want to give you a swelled head... or anything else, we leave that to Kristine, but could you be the "Anti-Tard" that has been foretold?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:11   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 22 2007,11:56)
Quote
Problem is, I can't decide if it would be funny or annoying to read the essays afterward about how the contest was BS, because the act of typing the random strings infused them with some CSI and blah blah blah...
They'll say that they couldnt detect any of the strings to be designed because what they claim is they dont get any false positives and that designers can mimic random strings. What you need to do is get something that looks designed that wasn't.

If they have to label 5 designed and 5 undesigned, unless they're perfect, and of course they won't be, they'll have to label one designed which wasn't. That's a false positive. But you're right that they'd issue a bunch of lame excuses.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:16   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 22 2007,10:50)
Rebuffed, rejected, and no longer welcome to nuzzle at the hairy teat of Intelligent Design that is UD, I slope dejectedly, like a newly minted drunk to the gutter, into this forlorn forum.

Dude, you rule!  One of the funniest moments recently was when Patrick quoted one of you UD comments over at OE.  He even managed to include True Athiests Reject Darwinism.

It was a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate that comment. They must have wised up finally.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:22   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,11:45)
How about these?

02100333122220202011220300203103

That's a good question. Is Pi designed, if you write it in other base systems?

:D

   
ofro



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:26   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 22 2007,10:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,07:42)
gpuccio          
Quote
Let’s suppose that we observe only one sequence, and that it is composed of 500 ones. Then:

A random sequence such as 11111 is just as rare as 10010 or 11000. The reason why a long string of 1's is a suspicion of design is because we know the general properties of coins and that humans have a predilection for order. However, atoms are not coins. A salt crystal is the equivalent of all 1's. Other atoms naturally arrange themselves into all sorts of complex structures.

gpuccio            
Quote
This is in fact the basis for pointing out why though it is logically and physically possible for the molecules of oxygen in a room to all rush to one end, without intelligent intervention etc, it is so maximally improbable that the relevant fluctuations on that scale are simply not observed.

Not at all — e.g., if the "room" is highly accelerated or in a strong gravitational field. We call the latter an "atmosphere".

gpuccio            
Quote
suppose you have to bet real money…

Then you would be easy to take. Just for fun, here are some decimal digits. Are they specified or random? If you can't find a specification, does that "make them random"?

9380952572010654858632788
6593615338182796823030195
2035301852968995773622599
4138912497217752834791315

How about these?

02100333122220202011220300203103

Last year I thought of a cute contest. Post 10 strings of 10 digits on the internet. 5 of the strings would be designed, maybe they're, say, bits of machine code or from an mp3 file or something. 5 of them would be copied from one of those old books of random numbers which have been generated by a physical device. Then you ask all the Intelligent Design 'theorists' to distinguish the designed ones from the random ones.

Problem is, I can't decide if it would be funny or annoying to read the essays afterward about how the contest was BS, because the act of typing the random strings infused them with some CSI and blah blah blah...

That reminds me of the DNA sequence in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park.  Was it a random sequence or was it designed, maybe even dinosaur DNA ?

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:40   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 22 2007,11:50)
Rebuffed, rejected, and no longer welcome to nuzzle at the hairy teat of Intelligent Design that is UD...

           *plop!*

Thanks Father Dougal... errrr.... Amadan for a great new idea for an avatar.

I say "Drink!".

Father Jack...  errrr... Mike PSS

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,11:54   

The phrase
Quote
the hairy teat of Intelligent Design

juxtaposes so elegantly with



Tell me you haven't thought the words "hairy teat" while gazing at this picture.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,12:10   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,06:42)
9380952572010654858632788
6593615338182796823030195
2035301852968995773622599
4138912497217752834791315

How about these?

02100333122220202011220300203103

I read this and then the damnedest thing popped into my head.

And now I must inflict it on all of you Tommy TuTone  and Jenny (867-5309)

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2007,12:21   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 22 2007,11:54)


Tell me you haven't thought the words "hairy teat" while gazing at this picture.

No, not hairy teat...

Althought I admit I DID think of Cheesy Teat...  But only for a moment, and it was only a fleeting manly, cheesy teat kind of thought, and then I started thinking about baseball immediatly afterword.  So there.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 410 411 412 413 414 [415] 416 417 418 419 420 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]