Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:08

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,22:04)

[SNIP]
Dispute that, if you can.

I'd be grateful if Danny could simply read the book I recommended. Intelligent critique of any matter of substance seems to be too much to ask. Actual disputation is a stellar requirement!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:09

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 25 2008,14:11)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 25 2008,15:46)

I think what Behe was objecting to was not whether they mentioned enzymes or not, but whether they explained their origin (if new ones are required) and their regulation. Any metabolic pathway contains enzymes, to think that he was implying that theirs didn't is, I think, a strawman.

Really?

Quote

[...] yet says nothing about the actual machinery of the refinery or its regulation, nothing about valves or switches [...]

Love those standards of yours, twice the size of other people's.

OK, I'll play your semantic game:

Quote

Finally Miller discusses a paper which works out a scheme for how the organic-chemical components of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, a central metabolic pathway, may have arisen gradually. (Melendez-Hevia et al. 1996) There are several points to make about it. First, the paper deals with the chemical interconversion of organic molecules, not the enzymes of the pathway or their regulation. As an analogy, suppose someone described how petroleum is refined step by step, beginning with crude oil, passing through intermediate grades, and ending with, say, gasoline. He shows that the chemistry of the processes is smooth and continuous, yet says nothing about the actual machinery of the refinery or its regulation, nothing about valves or switches. Clearly that is inadequate to show refining of petroleum developed step by step. Analogously, someone who is seriously interested in showing that a metabolic pathway could evolve by Darwinian means has to deal with the enzymic machinery and its regulation.

He was comparing their level of detail to an overall picture of the refining process of oil - which does not get down to the level of valves and switches. As an industrial electronics technician, I understand exactly what he's talking about. The fact that enzymes are mentioned in the article (are they mentioned in each hypothetical pathway?) doesn't negate his argument if they don't address the origin of each necessary enzyme and each enzyme's regulation (do they?).

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:10

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2008,14:08)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,22:04)

[SNIP]
Dispute that, if you can.

I'd be grateful if Danny could simply read the book I recommended. Intelligent critique of any matter of substance seems to be too much to ask. Actual disputation is a stellar requirement!

Louis

I can't afford it right now, but it's on my list.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:15

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,14:04)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,15:49)

Have you read it?

Yeah, I've read it. I even own a copy.

Even more importantly, I understood what I read, since, like Behe, I was also trained in biochemistry.

It's full of lies, Daniel. Lies of omission, which the average reader like yourself may not recognize, since they are not familiar with the many relevant publications that Behe ignores...

Please be specific. Enlighten me as to the "lies of omission" you found in the book.

Quote

As for the court stuff. Since when is science decided in a court of law? Was it decided in the Scopes trial? How about the trial of Galileo?

Put the goalposts back, please. I didn't say that science was decided in court. I said that Behe embarrassed himself in court when he couldn't explain the difference between ID and astrology, and when he was revealed as a poser who hadn't read most of the relevant literature on the evolution of the immune system.

Dispute that, if you can.

I wasn't trying to move the goalposts, I was saying that court testimony is irrelevant to me. I don't know why it's so important to you.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:22

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,15:36)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,14:48)

I'm predicting that future research will bring to light more problems that cannot be resolved - so long as scientists insist on undirected natural mechanisms.

Implying, of course, that the answers lie in directed supernatural mechanisms, which must be your favorite source of explanations. And for which you provide no support other than your incredulity about current scientific attempts to provide explanations.

OK, Daniel. I'll bite. What sort of research should be pursued if we want to invoke directed supernatural mechanisms? What kinds of experiments do you propose that would help you find the "truth" that you allegedly are seeking?

Did you "miss" this Daniel?

If undirected natural mechanisms are not the answer then presumably directed supernatural mechanisms are? How does one investigate directed supernatural mechanisms please?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:27

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:09)

As an industrial electronics technician, I understand exactly what he's talking about.

?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:40

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:09)

OK, I'll play your semantic game:

Quote

I presume it is the case that the origin of valves and switches are described when the oil refining process is described? And furthermore, the iterated designs for each item (the first invented, second invented etc up to the current design) are laid out?

Daniel, I agree. Not only should the origin of every enzyme have been described, but also the origin of the atoms that make them up. Then the origin of the protons, neutrons and electrons. Then the quarks, gluons, leptons etc etc.

Quote

You may hold out hope that future papers will give clearer answers and clear up much of this confusion, but I'm predicting that exactly the opposite will happen. I'm predicting that future research will bring to light more problems that cannot be resolved - so long as scientists insist on undirected natural mechanisms.

Daniel, please name for me a specific problem that "cannot be resolved" that you have encountered in your research.

Do you want to go with one you've mentioned already? Krebs? That's fine by me.

Your contention appears to be that given the current state of knowledge future research will *not* clarify and provide more information on the topic you pick? That'll we'll actually move backwards?

You see, once you pick your topic all we have to do is wait until the next paper that comes out that reveals new information and you are proven wrong. You appear to be claiming that from now on (for some reason) research will not be able to shed light on *your chosen topic*

Pick a single item Daniel. Then we can wait. And then you can move the goalposts *again* when a new discovery is made in your chosen topic. No doubt you'll say "well, it does not explain the ultimate origin of all the component parts" and well and good. Yet it's one step amongst many, all towards the goal of greater understanding. You claim that those steps will be going backwards don't you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:52

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,15:49)

I was shocked to find out that many of the criticisms I'd heard were already addressed in the body of the book! IOW, the people doing the criticisms either hadn't bothered to read the book all the way through, or they were intentionally ignoring relevant parts of it.

Get specific. Name one. And then we can discuss it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2753
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:55

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:15)

Please be specific. Enlighten me as to the "lies of omission" you found in the book.

Red herring; we're discussing your experimental approach to the study of directed supernatural mechanisms, remember?

If you want to read about Behe's omissions in his book, a good place to start might be this comment thread on a post at Behe's Amazon blog. It was the one comment thread that he mistakenly left open for comments! Once I discovered it, it rapidly turned into a fun time, with 272 comments. You can read about his lies of omission there, after you tell us how a scientific approach to the study of directed supernatural mechanisms. Don't get distracted, now!

Thanks in advance for avoiding this topic as well.

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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2753
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,16:58

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:15)

I wasn't trying to move the goalposts, I was saying that court testimony is irrelevant to me. I don't know why it's so important to you.

Because it is apparently the only place where IDiots have to answer questions that they can ignore or lie about in other venues...

Which is probably the reason that you'd prefer to ignore that testimony

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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4213
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,17:16

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:36)

And, even if this paper didn't meet all of your qualifications, why don't you humor me and tell me if you'd "dream of critiquing it"? (Although technically I guess you already have.)

A quick scan discloses that the Denton paper is, at best, a review article.

Hint: an article that lacks a "methods" and a "results" section, as is the case here, is unlikely to report original empirical research. Hence this article fails to approach the rudimentary standards I described above.

Regarding a critique: Denton's paper doesn't demand a fraction of the expertise described and called for by the Baughn and Malamy paper, and appears relatively readable. I'll get back to you on it.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,17:37

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,22:10)

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2008,14:08)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,22:04)

[SNIP]
Dispute that, if you can.

I'd be grateful if Danny could simply read the book I recommended. Intelligent critique of any matter of substance seems to be too much to ask. Actual disputation is a stellar requirement!

Louis

I can't afford it right now, but it's on my list.

Interlibrary loan: basically free (or so cheap that it counts as free).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4122
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,21:32

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:09)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 25 2008,14:11)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 25 2008,15:46)

Really?

Quote

[...] yet says nothing about the actual machinery of the refinery or its regulation, nothing about valves or switches [...]

Love those standards of yours, twice the size of other people's.

OK, I'll play your semantic game:

Quote

You're not playing my game; you are inventing your own. You apparently don't understand English and what "or" means in the language, and how that translates into logical claims.

Beyond that, you have no clue what Behe got wrong or right, yet you will bloviate endlessly that he must be right, and everyone else is wrong to hold him to the meaning of the words he writes.

I suppose intellectual masturbation must feel good, judging by the number of religious antievolutionists who insist on doing nothing else.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 2501
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Oct. 26 2008,23:33

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 27 2008,00:27)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,16:09)

As an industrial electronics technician, I understand exactly what he's talking about.

THAT IS SUPPOST 2 B FUNY?

WELL I'M TELLING U AS A GUY WHO NOSE HOW 2 CHANGE LITE BULBS AS WELL.

AND!

A SCREW LOOSE OF FULL FLEDGED INGENEER...... I CAN TELL TAHT DANIEL IS THE REAL MCKOY WHEN IT COMES TO BEING A REALLY AND TRULY GENUINE SCIENTIST PERSON WHOOSE OPINION IS BETTER THAN ALL YOU CLEVER TYPES PUT TOGETHER.

NEVER MIND THE FACTS HE FEELS IT AND SO CAN U.

SO COME ON ......WHO R THE BEST ID GUYS?

INGENEERS, LAWYERS AND SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS....RIGHT? OH AND SOME DUDE WHO SAID GOD COULD BE DEAD..... NO NOT NEATCHEE ......BEHE

WELL DANIEL IS ALMOST AN INGENEERS AND HE READ THAT DUDE BEHE'S BOOK AND EVILUTION IS NOT TRUE.

WHAT FRIGGEN MORE DO YOU NEED?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~DaveTard suit." dogdidit

Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD

Tony M Nyphot

Posts: 177
Joined: June 2008

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,01:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 25 2008,14:01)

Somebody explain what "empirical research" means to Daniel.

Catching up on things here after a weekend respite, so I know this is a tad late, but I'm not sure I'm reading Wesley's plea correctly.

Isn't it obvious that "empirical research" means nothing to Daniel?

Does that really need explaining to anyone?

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,10:16

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,13:36)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,14:48)

I'm predicting that future research will bring to light more problems that cannot be resolved - so long as scientists insist on undirected natural mechanisms.

I don't think we need to look for a "direct supernatural mechanism" (as you call it). Such a search would be futile anyway. No, the avenue that I think holds the most promise is the evidence that life on this planet was a planned event. One way of pursuing this with empirical research would be to follow the path Denton et al. outlined and seek the answer to the question: "Are there laws that govern evolution?". Nomogenesis (evolution determined by law) is not a new concept, in fact it was the title of a book written in the 1920's by the great Russian biologist Leo Berg. That book cataloged evidences of evolution by law including convergent evolution, mimicry, the polyphyletic origin of similar forms, and the geographical landscape as an agency for evolution. Schindewolf, as you know, continued where Berg left off and cataloged the fossil evidence in favor of such an interpretation. Others such as Pierre Grasse, John Davison and now Denton have continued in this vein.

The thing that you may not realize is that modern research, when viewed from the perspective of nomogenesis, unwittingly backs up such a view. I'll give you an example: The paper I recently read entitled Mitochondrial Evolution contains the following:

Quote

The possibility has been raised more generally that the earliest branchings of the eukaryotic tree may all be suspect for similar reasons (34, 53), with both “early” and “intermediate” branchings actually collapsing to an unresolved radiation (polychotomy) (54). The emerging revisionist view of eukaryotic evolution is a scenario characterized by a massive and virtually simultaneous radiation (big bang) at the base of the eukaryotic tree, involving virtually all extant eukaryotic phyla (34). [my bolding]

Such an observation is a prediction of nomogenesis. There are countless predictions put forth by Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, etc., that evolution consisted of rapid "explosions" of phyla.

Here's another observation from the same paper:

Quote

If, on the other hand, “the divergence of amitochondriate protists and crown eukaryotes is radically overestimated and actually corresponds to a very short period of time” (55), then the above time conflict between the origin of mitochondria and the divergence of the a-Proteobacteria is essentially resolved. We believe this solution is the most consistent with existing data. [again, my bolding]

Again, this radical overestimate of the time involved for divergence of phyla is no surprise to those espousing nomogenesis, but is rather a prediction of the theory.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,10:29

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 26 2008,19:32)

You are correct sir. The "or" does seem to validate your point. I still have two questions that remains unanswered though:

Quote

The fact that enzymes are mentioned in the article (are they mentioned in each hypothetical pathway?) doesn't negate his argument if they don't address the origin of each necessary enzyme and each enzyme's regulation (do they?).

So...
1. Do new or different enzymes appear in each hypothetical pathway?
and...
2. Do they address the origin of each necessary enzyme and its regulation?

If they are just pulling already-regulated enzymes out of thin air and placing them in a hypothetical pathway, then Behe's argument stands IMO.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2753
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,10:32

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 27 2008,10:16)

This is a non sequitur. There is no logical relationship between the notion that "life on this planet was a planned event" and the existence (or not) of "laws that govern evolution".

The first notion is not testable, unless you can tell us answers to lots of questions. Who planned it? When was it planned? What are the blueprints? How was the plan put into action? What were the tools? What were the raw materials? etc.

Saying that there are "laws that govern evolution" does not automatically lead to the conclusion that some agent developed those laws. What is the logical linkage, other than the words in your Bronze Age story book?

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,10:32

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 27 2008,10:16)

Again, this radical overestimate of the time involved for divergence of phyla is no surprise to those espousing nomogenesis, but is rather a prediction of the theory.

How old do you think the earth is Daniel?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6271
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,11:15

of course i wanna hear how old daniel thinks the world is, of course.

but if he dodges that one perhaps he might tell us what sort of 'laws' he thinks might be 'governing evolution'?

what other biological 'laws' is he aware of? i would be delighted with one. life comes from life would require him to define 'life', a topic he has failed to engage.

isn't it curious, daniel, that after 150 years of collecting evidence, no generalizable statements have emerged that resemble anything even remotely close to the law-like statements of the non-biological sciences? no laws have been seen (although there are many 'rules' and other such broad generalizations, they have exceptions, and some are based purely on theory "Dollo's Law" and not observation).

It's interesting, however, to see you and dawkins taking a similar tack. perhaps not everything is determined from the bottom up, you would agree? you are chasing reflections of memories of ripples seen through the gossamer wings of sprites nymphs and dryads.

please stop pretending to be interested in biology, you are interested in the endless circle of self-manifestation. i suggest returning to that eternal question posed by Camus.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,11:24

Daniel has a few opinions on the age of the earth:

Quote

For instance; I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it.

Link

Quote

I don't know. I haven't really studied both sides of the whole "age of the earth" debate, so I'm not prepared to give an answer on those.

Link

In that last one Daniel is asked "Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?"
And says in reply: "It's possible, but again I don't know."

Quote

I don't really care about the age of the earth. I don't know why you think that's such a big deal anyway.

Link

Quote

Actually, it's only the gradual evolution of Darwinism that requires hundreds of millions of years to bring about 'life as we know it'. A saltational evolution theory does not require that timespan. So, I have not been really concerned about "proving" the age of the earth to myself. It's not an issue for me. A saltational theory can "take or leave" the hundreds of millions of years required by gradualism.

Link

Quote

I've got no problem with the currently accepted age of the earth either. All I said was that this saltational theory does not require that timespan.

Link

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,11:35

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 27 2008,10:16)

There are countless predictions put forth by Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, etc., that evolution consisted of rapid "explosions" of phyla.

Please select from the following:

Rapid means

a) Instant (think-poof)
b) A day
c) A week
d) A month
e) A year
f) 10 years
g) 100 years
h) 1000 years
i) Tens of thousands of years
j) Millions of years
k) Other

What does "rapid" mean to you Daniel? What do you understand when you read "rapid"?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Henry J

Posts: 3736
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,11:57

Quote

There are countless predictions put forth by Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, etc., that evolution consisted of rapid "explosions" of phyla.

Were these predictions made before or after the data indicated these "explosions"?

How does this "explosion of phyla" disagree with the expectations of the current theory? (Note: keep in mind that the early representatives of the phyla were not as different from each other as are their modern representatives.)

Henry

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6271
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,12:02

it appears that under his epistemology the age of the earth can never be known so it is not worth even attempting to estimate. or even guess. just shrug it off, we can't provide an atom-for-atom account of matter so it's just speculation right Daniel?

remember that this also holds for "What did Erasmus eat for breakfast this morning?" (I challenge you to give me a molecule-by-molecule account, complete with biochemical changes and why they might have happened that way, as opposed to another possible way).

Your pathetic level of detail is rather charming. Do go on as if these points were never raised, please.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 2501
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,12:43

Lets just see how nutty Daniel is.

Daniel, do you:

1: Believe in witches?
2: Believe in the Devil?
3: Believe the Earth could be 6ooo +/~ 1OOO years old?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~DaveTard suit." dogdidit

Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,13:00

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 27 2008,10:43)

Daniel, do you:

1: Believe in witches?
2: Believe in the Devil?
3: Believe the Earth could be 6ooo +/~ 1OOO years old?

We shouldn't bother Daniel with such questions. I mean, he's not running for vice-president...

--------------
"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: 2501
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,13:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 27 2008,21:00)

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 27 2008,10:43)

Daniel, do you:

1: Believe in witches?
2: Believe in the Devil?
3: Believe the Earth could be 6ooo +/~ 1OOO years old?

We shouldn't bother Daniel with such questions. I mean, he's not running for vice-president...

Yeah right,

he's not a rogue mini her Imelda Marcos unless he's in

drag which considering his completely gay ass-ertions.

So the question should be.......

Daniel do you live with your mom and what is your favourite part of the body?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~DaveTard suit." dogdidit

Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD

Posts: 2501
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,13:17

If anyone wants to know mine......after a few reds the hips ....very closely followed by the breasts.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~DaveTard suit." dogdidit

Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD

Posts: 2501
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Oct. 27 2008,13:21

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 27 2008,18:16)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,13:36)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,14:48)

I'm predicting that future research will bring to light more problems that cannot be resolved - so long as scientists insist on undirected natural mechanisms.

Quote

Again, this radical overestimate of the time involved for divergence of phyla is no surprise to those espousing nomogenesis, but is rather a prediction of the theory.

Fuckology Dan.

We are here to amuse ourselves and thankyou thankyou thankyou.

Man you have scored the trifecta.

Quoting krackpots from the 1920's and 1990's AND YOUR CONSIDERED OPINION!!!!!

.....ooooooooh that's so last century

hahahahhahahahahahahahaha

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~DaveTard suit." dogdidit

Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD

blipey

Posts: 2023
Joined: June 2006