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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 ... >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2013,14:41    maybe he is finishing the cracking up process -------------- 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

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2013,15:19    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 05 2013,12:41) maybe he is finishing the crack. ftfy. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2013,17:59    Quote Professor Christopher Martin’s slighting references to the Great Architect display his lack of familiarity with history. I have already shown, in my previous post, that the reference to God as the “Great Architect” goes back not to the 18th century Freemasons but to John Calvin in the 16th century, and that artistic depictions of God as an Architect go back to the Middle Ages. What I would maintain, as an ID advocate (and I’m speaking for no-one but myself here), is that if God wishes to make an oak, He needs to specify, down to the last detail, the genetic information He wishes that oak to contain in its cells. If He didn’t do that, then the thing He made wouldn’t be an oak at all. Indeed, it wouldn’t be alive at all. It wouldn’t even be an entity, but only a virtual imitation at best. In a nutshell: the top-level of an entity does not, and cannot, determine all of the details at the bottom. If God tried to make men from the top down, without specifying their constituent atomic particles, then they wouldn’t be men at all. They’d be no more real than the things in the movie, “The Matrix.” Real entities – be they people, animals, plants or minerals – have to be fully specified at the bottom level as well as the top. Otherwise, they’re not entities at all. keep that in mind when you read John West Jr's little essay "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2013,00:42    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2013,14:02) Torley posts another very long essay. I had to hit Page Down 68 times to get to the end of it.  I no longer bother with word counts. Quote Man's capacity for mental masturbation is absolutely amazing. You got it.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2013,01:01    Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 06 2013,00:42) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2013,14:02) Torley posts another very long essay. I had to hit Page Down 68 times to get to the end of it.  I no longer bother with word counts.   Quote Man's capacity for mental masturbation is absolutely amazing. You got it. Can some sock "tl;dr"? -------------- "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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,13:37    Granville Sewell is making a fool of himself over the second law of thermodynamics again.  And this time vjtorley is joining in on the fun:   Quote Hi Professor Sewell, Great post. I found the video very clear, and the argument straightforward. To those who say the sun could have done the trick, I say: sunbeams aren’t that smart. Says the man who just wasted 68 pages explaining frickin Thomas Aquinas' real views on ID to us.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,13:48    Just found a nice piece of Joe:       Quote Alan Fox:       Quote Detach the brain, or more simply he head, from the body, more importantly the sustenance the blood supply provides, and the mind disappears. Joeboy: And how do you know that, exactly? This suggests an interesting experiments for the Fabled ID Unbiased True Science in Jesus' Name Labs: "The Effect of Decapitation on the Intelligence of UD Posters." Anybody want to make bets?  I'm looking for a measurable increase in intelligence here.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,13:56    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2013,17:59)   Quote Professor Christopher Martin’s slighting references to the Great Architect display his lack of familiarity with history. I have already shown, in my previous post, that the reference to God as the “Great Architect” goes back not to the 18th century Freemasons but to John Calvin in the 16th century, and that artistic depictions of God as an Architect go back to the Middle Ages. What I would maintain, as an ID advocate (and I’m speaking for no-one but myself here), is that if God wishes to make an oak, He needs to specify, down to the last detail, the genetic information He wishes that oak to contain in its cells. If He didn’t do that, then the thing He made wouldn’t be an oak at all. Indeed, it wouldn’t be alive at all. It wouldn’t even be an entity, but only a virtual imitation at best. In a nutshell: the top-level of an entity does not, and cannot, determine all of the details at the bottom. If God tried to make men from the top down, without specifying their constituent atomic particles, then they wouldn’t be men at all. They’d be no more real than the things in the movie, “The Matrix.” Real entities – be they people, animals, plants or minerals – have to be fully specified at the bottom level as well as the top. Otherwise, they’re not entities at all. keep that in mind when you read John West Jr's little essay "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" In a similar vein, what I maintain, as a man who can tie his own shoelaces (and I’m speaking for no-one but myself here), is that if God wants to bake a cake, he has to specify, down to the last detail, the type, location, and orientation of every single atom and sub-atomic particle in it.  None of this mixing the ingredients in a bowl and baking at 350 degrees crap. Edited by CeilingCat on Jan. 07 2013,14:00

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,13:57    I know there are lots of excuses, but Jesus didn't make it back within the lifetime of his disciples, thus breaking his promise. So many centuries of experimental evidence suggests that no head, no mind. No black  swans or white crows. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,13:58    Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 07 2013,11:48) Just found a nice piece of Joe:         Quote Alan Fox:       Quote Detach the brain, or more simply he head, from the body, more importantly the sustenance the blood supply provides, and the mind disappears. Joeboy: And how do you know that, exactly? This suggests an interesting experiments for the Fabled ID Unbiased True Science in Jesus' Name Labs: "The Effect of Decapitation on the Intelligence of UD Posters." Anybody want to make bets?  I'm looking for a measurable increase in intelligence here. I'd like to propose a slightly more ethical experiment - what's the simplest program which can pass the Tarding Test?  Can it generate a series of posts which are so like the real thing that it can converse with the UD regulars? If we hook it up to a Web connection, we could probably get the Dodgenator 3000 to run on a toaster. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,13:59    Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 07 2013,13:48) Just found a nice piece of Joe:         Quote Alan Fox:         Quote Detach the brain, or more simply he head, from the body, more importantly the sustenance the blood supply provides, and the mind disappears. Joeboy: And how do you know that, exactly? This suggests an interesting experiments for the Fabled ID Unbiased True Science in Jesus' Name Labs: "The Effect of Decapitation on the Intelligence of UD Posters." Anybody want to make bets?  I'm looking for a measurable increase in intelligence here. Oh c'mon! Joe is living proof that fingers can type almost coherent sentences with no mind.  As an authority on a body functioning without a brain, I think he's entitled to posit that the opposite is hypothetically possible... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,14:06    John W.: Quote I'd like to propose a slightly more ethical experiment - what's the simplest program which can pass the Tarding Test?  Can it generate a series of posts which are so like the real thing that it can converse with the UD regulars? From the very next post: Quote 7 Tim January 5, 2013 at 12:09 am Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.” Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.) “My claim’s neat and clean. I’m a Turing Machine!” … ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,22:33    Ian Thompson on "Is Atheism Justifiable?": Quote That precise description reminds me of Marx and Freud, and of another ideologue of that same century, of much influence even now, whose name strangely escapes me. Um, James Clerk Maxwell? Well, maybe, since he was a creationist like these bozos.  Anyhow, it seems less prejudicial to fault him for that than to pretend that somehow the time period invalidates the science, which neither it nor his creationism does to Maxwell's equations. Oh well, just one piece of the IDiocy that is UD/ID. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,23:06    @ 80 same thread: Quote One of the things I love about this site is that the community is typically very reasonable and even charitable towards opposing viewpoints. That's fortunate.  I was inferring from the evidence that they made fun of much more knowledgeable opponents, often banning them, while claiming that anyone who doesn't accept IDiocy without any meaningful evidence was merely committed to sinning and evil. I guess evidence never counts for anything. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2013,23:46    William J. Murray has achieved the exalted position of Poster on UD and has been nice enough to give us a definition of intellectual dishonesty:   Quote Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not. Ah Bill ... considering where you're posting from and everything ... especially points (2) and (3) ... are you sure you want to ... Never mind.

DiEb Posts: 312 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2013,01:16    William J. Murray asks Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? To answer this question, he defines a god: Quote Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.) I had to ask: Quote Quick question: Why is the God of your definition bound by the principles of logic? Unfortunately but not surprisingly this question will never be answered: My comment with the number 20 is still in moderation while the total number of comments is nearing 100, including the usual tirades of bornagain and kairosfocus....

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2013,13:14    Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 07 2013,23:16) William J. Murray asks Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? To answer this question, he defines a god:   Quote Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.) I had to ask:   Quote Quick question: Why is the God of your definition bound by the principles of logic? Unfortunately but not surprisingly this question will never be answered: My comment with the number 20 is still in moderation while the total number of comments is nearing 100, including the usual tirades of bornagain and kairosfocus.... Definition of roc: the source of roc eggs. See, all you have to do is assume the attributes exist, and you have proven your definition. Easy peasy. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2013,15:14    Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 08 2013,07:16) William J. Murray asks Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? Heard it! http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....o....ore-943 Yes, of course it is. But you try telling Bill that. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2013,17:36    I think that noDoc Billy J is going to be a valuable addition to the UD poster roster.  Note how he uses every adjective ever applied to the Christian God to define god: Quote Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” and then finishes with a big fat lie: Quote (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.) Welcome to UD, William, you're going to fit right in.

DiEb Posts: 312 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2013,18:45    It took my last comment only 2 - 3 days to get moderated, so I tried it again: At the comment-thread for the article "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" I wrote:   Quote The structure of "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" isn't well designed: Whom do you expect to read this?   Quote 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 ->  20->    1.    2.    3.    4.    5.  21 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 ->  a]  b]  c]  d]  e]  f] 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> PS. Edited by DiEb on Jan. 11 2013,00:54

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2013,22:56    Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 10 2013,18:45) It took my last comment only 2 - 3 days to get moderated, so I tried it again: At the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/they-said-it-contrasted-introductions-to-and-definitions-of-intelligent-design-at-wikipedi a-and-new-world-encyclopedia/]comment-thread[/URL] for the article [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/wikis-f-on-id-5-subtly-distorting-the-truth-on-discovery-institutes-policy-on-education-in -public-schools-multiplied-by-a-failure-of-due-disclosure-on-judge-jones-kitzmiller-dover- ruling/]"Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling"[/URL] I wrote:   Quote The structure of "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" isn't well designed: Whom do you expect to read this?   Quote 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 ->  20->    1.    2.    3.    4.    5.  21 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 ->  a]  b]  c]  d]  e]  f] 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> PS. It's not meant to be read. It's only purpose is to allow KF to state that although he explained everything in detail you either refused to read or you didn't comprehend anything. Then he will continue with burning red herings used to ignite strawmen soaked in ad hominem  interspersed with some occasional "Lewontin" rant and Mafioso-style outing claims. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

hotshoe Posts: 42 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2013,22:56    Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 10 2013,18:45) It took my last comment only 2 - 3 days to get moderated, so I tried it again: At the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/they-said-it-contrasted-introductions-to-and-definitions-of-intelligent-design-at-wikipedi a-and-new-world-encyclopedia/]comment-thread[/URL] for the article [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/wikis-f-on-id-5-subtly-distorting-the-truth-on-discovery-institutes-policy-on-education-in -public-schools-multiplied-by-a-failure-of-due-disclosure-on-judge-jones-kitzmiller-dover- ruling/]"Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling"[/URL] I wrote:     Quote The structure of "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" isn't well designed: Whom do you expect to read this?     Quote 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 ->  20->    1.    2.    3.    4.    5.  21 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 ->  a]  b]  c]  d]  e]  f] 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> PS. Heh.  Well, I'm definitely not on kf's list of proposed readers - and yet - read it I did.  Gah. Here's part 21: Quote 21 –> Given such a longstanding reply posted by DI on its site, in all fairness, Wikipedia has a duty to provide solid warrant for rejecting such and for justifying that to use the equation of Intelligent Design and Creationism in its introduction as a prime premise of the point its article makes, is very well warranted indeed. For Wiki is making an accusation — not of error — but one of outright, widespread large scale intellectual fraud. Can anyone decipher that?  Would it even have a meaning if it were translated from IDiot to normal English?  Or is it just a Sokal?

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2013,23:06    I translate it to mean Wikipedia has DI's number. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2013,23:22    NSFW! Talking about Gordon E. Mullings: Google's feature to drop pictures in the search field to find pages that include matching images reveals from where he got the porn picture and what he cut away from it on his web site where he stated back in 2010:   Quote There is now a rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up. Kairosfocus may not be aware of the fact that one isn't obliged to follow the links on Google result pages. Especially, when the content is quite obvious from the link description or from the content preview. And a content filter for picture search results has been available for ages. What a hypocrit. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2013,00:44    Quote (hotshoe @ Jan. 10 2013,22:56) Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 10 2013,18:45) It took my last comment only 2 - 3 days to get moderated, so I tried it again: At the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/they-said-it-contrasted-introductions-to-and-definitions-of-intelligent-design-at-wikipedi a-and-new-world-encyclopedia/]comment-thread[/URL] for the article [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/wikis-f-on-id-5-subtly-distorting-the-truth-on-discovery-institutes-policy-on-education-in -public-schools-multiplied-by-a-failure-of-due-disclosure-on-judge-jones-kitzmiller-dover- ruling/]"Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling"[/URL] I wrote:     Quote The structure of "Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling" isn't well designed: Whom do you expect to read this?     Quote 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 ->  20->    1.    2.    3.    4.    5.  21 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 ->  a]  b]  c]  d]  e]  f] 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> PS. Heh.  Well, I'm definitely not on kf's list of proposed readers - and yet - read it I did.  Gah. Here's part 21:   Quote 21 –> Given such a longstanding reply posted by DI on its site, in all fairness, Wikipedia has a duty to provide solid warrant for rejecting such and for justifying that to use the equation of Intelligent Design and Creationism in its introduction as a prime premise of the point its article makes, is very well warranted indeed. For Wiki is making an accusation — not of error — but one of outright, widespread large scale intellectual fraud. Can anyone decipher that?  Would it even have a meaning if it were translated from IDiot to normal English?  Or is it just a Sokal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....ophasia -------------- "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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2013,13:57    Quote Yes. -------------- 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

hotshoe Posts: 42 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2013,14:21    Quote (keiths @ Jan. 11 2013,13:57) Quote Yes. Hell, yes.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2013,14:29    The windmill is still winning. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2013,14:32    Has pointlessness ever stopped them previously? Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2013,16:08    The question is clearly rhetorical. Hint: comments off. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Pages: (356) < ... 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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