RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 510 511 512 513 514 [515] 516 517 518 519 520 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:06   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,18:54)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,01:49)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,18:44)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,01:39)
Test = "The theory of intelligent design holds that"
Hypothesis = "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,"
NotHypothesis = "not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Test + Hypothesis + NotHypothesis = TheoryPremise = "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Is it really that hard to google "premise", "hypothesis" and "theory" you fucking retard?

Do you get a thrill out of being an asshole?

You wouldn't be getting your knickers in a bunch like that if you FUCKING GOOGLED THOSE AND REALIZED HOW RETARDED THAT "EQUATION" IS

It must be awful for you to have been "proven wrong".

Since scientists are supposed to "love being proven wrong" about things like this then we can safely assume that you are not a scientist, or even think like one.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:15   

Hey, Gary, if only "certain features" are best explained by intelligent cause, which features aren't best explained by intelligent cause?  Can you list some?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,02:06)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,18:54)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,01:49)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,18:44)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,01:39)
Test = "The theory of intelligent design holds that"
Hypothesis = "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,"
NotHypothesis = "not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Test + Hypothesis + NotHypothesis = TheoryPremise = "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Is it really that hard to google "premise", "hypothesis" and "theory" you fucking retard?

Do you get a thrill out of being an asshole?

You wouldn't be getting your knickers in a bunch like that if you FUCKING GOOGLED THOSE AND REALIZED HOW RETARDED THAT "EQUATION" IS

It must be awful for you to have been "proven wrong".

Since scientists are supposed to "love being proven wrong" about things like this then we can safely assume that you are not a scientist, or even think like one.

Logic fail, as expected from a creatard. Can you figure out why dumbass?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,18:57)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2015,18:39)
Test = "The theory of intelligent design holds that"
Hypothesis = "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,"
NotHypothesis = "not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Test + Hypothesis + NotHypothesis = TheoryPremise = "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

OK, that doesn't make much sense.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that" is the beginning of a description or summary of the supposed theory of intelligent design.

If "certain features ..... by an intelligent cause" is an hypothesis then the whole thing is not a theory.  "The theory holds that" implies that what follows is the theory.

However, "certain features" is so imprecise as to be useless and uninteresting.  Of course some things in the universe are designed.  No one doubts that, but that's not an explanation of anything specific, nor does it have any implications at all, so the whole mess is utterly pointless.

"NotHypothesis" has no meaning, so you are babbling again.  Possibly what you meant is "null hypothesis", except that a null hypothesis is indeed very much an hypothesis, so either way you are being stupid.

However, the way you are using the phrase, you are merely making an unsupported assertion that you never get around to backing up.  Worse, natural selection has been documented to be important in evolutionary change, so you are just asserting rubbish.

Lastly a test plus an hypothesis (with or without whatever a NotHypothesis is) does not equal a premise.  Never has, never will.

You are helping to show why you were totally unable to develop the described scientific theory.

In your methodology you only make excuses for not even trying.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:30   

Quote
You are helping to show why you were totally unable to develop the described scientific theory.


You keep saying nonsense as though you think you are making sense.  It's quite a remarkable delusion.

You are babbling rubbish about how science works, and you are wrong in describing that heap of hooey as a theory.  Go on, prove me wrong with respect to your test-hypothesis-'nothypothesis' inanity.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:33   

If only Gaulin was right for once in that

Quote
the outcome of the whole ID controversy is at stake here


Unfortunately that won't be the case

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,19:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,19:30)
Quote
You are helping to show why you were totally unable to develop the described scientific theory.


You keep saying nonsense as though you think you are making sense.  It's quite a remarkable delusion.

You are babbling rubbish about how science works, and you are wrong in describing that heap of hooey as a theory.  Go on, prove me wrong with respect to your test-hypothesis-'nothypothesis' inanity.

Then I have better things to do right now than waste all my time where I get no respect, no respect at all....

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2015,20:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,19:30)
Quote
You are helping to show why you were totally unable to develop the described scientific theory.


You keep saying nonsense as though you think you are making sense.  It's quite a remarkable delusion.

You are babbling rubbish about how science works, and you are wrong in describing that heap of hooey as a theory.  Go on, prove me wrong with respect to your test-hypothesis-'nothypothesis' inanity.

Then I have better things to do right now than waste all my time where I get no respect, no respect at all....

What have you done that's worth even a scintilla of respect?
In 515 pages here and 8+ years wandering around the Internet, nothing at all.  Not one single thing.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:23   

Quote
Then I have better things to do right now than waste all my time where I get no respect, no respect at all....


Yes, you'd be much better off not wasting your time on your nonsense.  Almost anything else would be better.  If you want respect, do something that deserves it.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,21:30   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,19:15)
Hey, Gary, if only "certain features" are best explained by intelligent cause, which features aren't best explained by intelligent cause?  Can you list some?

Gary, did you miss these easy questions?  You wouldn't be running away from them would you?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,01:38   

Quote
Gary, did you miss these easy questions?  You wouldn't be running away from them would you?


Running away ? Gaulin? Tell me it isn't so! Gaulin, the genius of the ID movement, can't run away from his real-science not-a-theory because if he does the whole shoddy edifice will collapse. He just told us so.

Run, Gaulin, Run! See how Gaulin runs!

One question, Gaulin. Can you prove Postcardo's "theory" is wrong?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,03:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2015,19:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,19:30)
Quote
You are helping to show why you were totally unable to develop the described scientific theory.


You keep saying nonsense as though you think you are making sense.  It's quite a remarkable delusion.

You are babbling rubbish about how science works, and you are wrong in describing that heap of hooey as a theory.  Go on, prove me wrong with respect to your test-hypothesis-'nothypothesis' inanity.

Then I have better things to do right now than waste all my time where I get no respect, no respect at all....

So...anywhere that you bring up your "model" (including blithering IDiot venues).

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,06:28   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,02:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,19:30)
Quote
You are helping to show why you were totally unable to develop the described scientific theory.


You keep saying nonsense as though you think you are making sense.  It's quite a remarkable delusion.

You are babbling rubbish about how science works, and you are wrong in describing that heap of hooey as a theory.  Go on, prove me wrong with respect to your test-hypothesis-'nothypothesis' inanity.

Then I have better things to do right now than waste all my time where I get no respect, no respect at all....

If you want people to respect you, try earning some respect first.

Hint: you get none for misrepresenting science and being a looney in the broadest sense

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:00   

UK news media has been busy publishing headlines that are not exactly true. One of the articles was presented for discussion at the Kurzweil AI forum:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums....a-brain

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,16:00)
UK news media has been busy publishing headlines that are not exactly true. One of the articles was presented for discussion at the Kurzweil AI forum:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....a-brain

Chime in the peer review Gaulin. They forgot about the sensory sensors

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:17   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,21:30)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,19:15)
Hey, Gary, if only "certain features" are best explained by intelligent cause, which features aren't best explained by intelligent cause?  Can you list some?

Gary, did you miss these easy questions?  You wouldn't be running away from them would you?

I don't know of any features (including speciation) that are better explained by "natural selection".

Your need to talk in metaphors instead of models and circuits is a symptom of an oversimplified theory that has less explanatory power than you were taught to believe.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,16:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,21:30)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,19:15)
Hey, Gary, if only "certain features" are best explained by intelligent cause, which features aren't best explained by intelligent cause?  Can you list some?

Gary, did you miss these easy questions?  You wouldn't be running away from them would you?

I don't know of any features (including speciation) that are better explained by "natural selection".

Your need to talk in metaphors instead of models and circuits is a symptom of an oversimplified theory that has less explanatory power than you were taught to believe.

Do you even know what "explanatory power" means?

Please, let us know, what do all those transitions in your diagram represent in the real world, what does that thing do to explain a single process or event observed in the real world, what predictions does your model do, and what are those unintelligent and intelligent causes, and how and where do we look for them in the real world.

If you can't use you theory to answer those questions, then it has zero explanatory power

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,09:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,21:30)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 16 2015,19:15)
Hey, Gary, if only "certain features" are best explained by intelligent cause, which features aren't best explained by intelligent cause?  Can you list some?

Gary, did you miss these easy questions?  You wouldn't be running away from them would you?

I don't know of any features (including speciation) that are better explained by "natural selection".

Your need to talk in metaphors instead of models and circuits is a symptom of an oversimplified theory that has less explanatory power than you were taught to believe.

Fail, Gaulin. I didn't even mention natural selection.  Your sad attempt at misdirection is duly noted.

I asked you to list some features of the universe and of living things that aren't better explained by "intelligent cause". You keep claiming that "certain features...are best explained by intelligent cause".   If you believe that all features are best explained by intelligent cause, why not say that?  If your claim only covers certain features, then please tell us which features are not included.

You wouldn't be making a generalization, would you?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:41   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 17 2015,09:34)
Fail, Gaulin. I didn't even mention natural selection.

The premise of the theory is:
 
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Your sad attempt at misdirection is duly noted.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:43   

Answer this very simple question Gaulin.

If your "theory" is supposed to replace evolution, what does your "theory" predict with regards to phylogeny? Does it predict a phylogenetic tree? A straight line? A bush of interconnected, chaotic transitions?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,09:53   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,09:43)
If your "theory" is supposed to replace evolution, what does your "theory" predict with regards to phylogeny?

The word "evolution" defines a "process", not a "theory" to explain how the process works.

Your questions are another diversion.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,16:53)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,09:43)
If your "theory" is supposed to replace evolution, what does your "theory" predict with regards to phylogeny?

The word "evolution" defines a "process", not a "theory" to explain how the process works.

Your questions are another diversion.

Forget about evolution and that ridiculous remark that it's not a theory.

What about your theory? You mentioned that it has more explanatory power than "what we believe in"

What does it do to explain phylogeny?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:11   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,18:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,16:53)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,09:43)
If your "theory" is supposed to replace evolution, what does your "theory" predict with regards to phylogeny?

The word "evolution" defines a "process", not a "theory" to explain how the process works.

Your questions are another diversion.

Forget about evolution and that ridiculous remark that it's not a theory.

What about your theory? You mentioned that it has more explanatory power than "what we believe in"

What does it do to explain phylogeny?

I predict Gary can't pronounce phylogeny.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:27   

From http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-major....ulation
Quote
The international team, led by Henry Markram of École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne (EPFL) and funded in part by the Swiss government, completed a first-draft computer reconstruction of a piece of the rat-brain neocortex — about a third of a cubic millimeter of brain tissue containing about 30,000 neurons connected by nearly 40 million synapses.

The electrical behavior of the virtual brain tissue was simulated on supercomputers and found to match the behavior observed in a number of experiments on the brain. Further simulations revealed novel insights into the functioning of the neocortex.

The simulation reproduced a range of previous observations made in experiments on the brain, validating its biological accuracy and providing new insights into the functioning of the neocortex.

Oh, look, they took care to ground-truth their model by designing algorithms to mimic exactly what happens in nature.  You on the other hand put a hippocampus in an insect.  In greater detail, you have simplistic circuitry that you have never bothered to fine-tune, and just make all sorts of ridiculous grandiose claims that are not based on the model, about things that you manifestly do not understand (such as your statements about natural selection).

Quote
The study was a massive effort by 82 scientists and engineers at institutions in Switzerland, Israel, Spain, Hungary, USA, China, Sweden, and the UK. The researchers performed tens of thousands of experiments on neurons and synapses in the neocortex of young rats and catalogued each type of neuron and each type of synapse they found. They identified a series of fundamental rules describing how the neurons are arranged in the microcircuit and how they are connected via synapses.

According to Michael Reimann, a lead author who developed the algorithm used to predict the locations of the nearly 40 million synapses in the microcircuitry, “The algorithm begins by positioning realistic 3D models of neurons in a virtual volume, respecting the measured distribution of different neuron types at different depths. It then detects all locations where the branches of the neurons touch each other — over 600 million.

You didn't do anything comparable: you just created a word salad, and asserted that it matched reality.

Quote
“It then systematically prunes [deletes] all the touches that do not fit with five biological rules of connectivity. That leaves 37 million touches.These are the locations where we constructed our model synapses.” To model the behavior of synapses, the researchers integrated data from their experiments and data from the literature. “It is big step forward that we can now estimate the ion currents flowing through 37 million synapses by integrating data for only a few of them,” says Srikanth Ramaswamy, a lead author.

Researchers found a close match between connectivity statistics for the digital reconstruction and experimental measurements in biological tissue, which had not been used in the reconstruction, including measurements by researchers outside the project. Javier DeFelipe, a senior author from Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (UPM), confirms that the digital reconstruction compares well with data from powerful electron microscopes, obtained independently at his laboratory.


And again, you put a supposed hippocampus in an insect.  Worse, it doesn't in any way match an actual hippocampus - it's just some inaccurate oversimplified code that you labeled a hippocampus.  You might just as well have said, "Let there be intelligence," and tapped your magic wand twice, for all the added explanation that you've created.

You wonder why you get no respect?  Look at what you are doing.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:41   

Gaulin, I hinted this over at Sandwalk.

I'm working on a theory myself, here's it's central hypothesis

Quote
The theory of Interdimensional Squirrel Flatulation holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by a flatulent cause, not directed processes or undirected processes such as natural selection.


Unlike you, I'm very precise when it comes to identifying what features are better explained by these parallel universes' farting squirrels. Those features are... well, whatever science has still found no explanation for.

The Theory of Interdimensional Squirrel Flatulation, also known as the squirrel-of-the-stinky-gaps, makes a strong case for Farted Evolution, in which mutations are the byproduct of squirrel flatulence, probably enhanced by an diet rich in interdimensional burritos, that tunnel through the fabric of space time and occasionally hitting DNA strains while replicating.

Here's the diagram


  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:41   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,10:02)
What about your theory? .........

What does it do to explain phylogeny?

The ID-Lab #5 software package includes the code used for drawing the following illustration where all in it interacts with each other in the Environment. What it metaphorically resembles is best left up to you to decide. But if you need my opinion then a phrase like "hive mind" is more appropriate than plant shapes:



--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,17:41)
What it metaphorically resembles is best left up to you to decide.

Awesome, so that's what you call explanatory power?

It should be your "theory" what explained stuff, instead of letting people make up their own explanation.

You admitted right there that your theory lacks explanatory power. Science fail Gaulin, epic science fail

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,10:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,11:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,10:02)
What about your theory? .........

What does it do to explain phylogeny?

The ID-Lab #5 software package includes the code used for drawing the following illustration where all in it interacts with each other in the Environment. What it metaphorically resembles is best left up to you to decide. But if you need my opinion then a phrase like "hive mind" is more appropriate than plant shapes:


This diagram has already been shown to be rubbish.
That you bring it up yet again is typical, and typically absurd.
Among other fatal flaws, molecules do not evolve nor do they speciate as indicated on this drawing.  The complex interrelationships between events, processes, and entities in the real world in no way works as you have diagrammed.

You are trying to distract from a number of fatal flaws in your notions all of which have come up recently.
You are unable to determine which features of the universe are 'best explained' by 'intelligent cause'.
You are unable to define what does and does not count as an 'intelligent cause'.  You have no operational definition for 'intelligent' nor 'cause'.
Your 'circuit diagram' of intelligence is fatally flawed by showing a 'muscle control system' (no matter how labeled) as an inherent element in any act, event, process or thing to be considered intelligent.  The notion fails for a number of reasons, none of which you have acknowledged nor countered.
You are unable to specify precisely what you mean by 'sensory addressed memory' and thus the phrase is effectively meaningless.  
Science does not require that anyone provide a 'replacement' for the notions you propose or they stand.  That's simply not how science works.  You are strikingly unable to identify a single concrete problem with any other accepted theory that your notions address, let alone serve as a candidate replacement for.
Your notions starkly lack any explanatory power whatsoever.  At their best, they are merely word games reflective of your staggering ignorance of biology, cognitive science, psychology, kinetics, kinematics, kinesiology, ecology, environmental science, and ecology.
You complain that you get no respect yet you have not once produced anything respectable in this, nor any other, thread.  After 8+ years of effort, that marks quite a history of non-achievement.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,11:20   

Quote
What it metaphorically resembles is best left up to you to decide.

That's an extremely unwise choice, if you are looking for respect.  

Sure glad we didn't step in it.  (HT: National Lampoon)

Quote
But if you need my opinion then a phrase like "hive mind" is more appropriate than plant shapes
We clearly don't, because it clearly doesn't. Dazz's diagram looks more like DaVinci's Last Supper than your diagram looks like a hive mind.

Are you ever going to explain your "NotHypothesis"?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,11:29   

What an amazing day for science. The first piece of evidence in support of The Grand Theory of Interdimensional Squirrel Flatulation

Squirrel eating a chorizo burrito

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 510 511 512 513 514 [515] 516 517 518 519 520 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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