Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Do you believe in human evolution?
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
sleipner
Rival


Member 2539

Level 7.28

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 11:35 AM #76 of 114
Ozma: Actually, the reason incest is forbidden (barring the obvious moral reasons, and the repulsion the very idea brings up =/) is because there is a much greater risk for birth defects in children. This is because our genes, over thousands of years, have gradually begun to decay. I imagine that the first humans (assuming they were created, not evolved) would have had perfect DNA and therefore no issue with birth defects in offspring until much, MUCH further down the road.
Actually that was what I was talking about. I couldn't care less about the moral implications of incest, just that there are things that can go wrong with sibling breeding. Not taking into account the fact that random mutations can occur via radiation or imperfect DNA transcription, Creationism would show that our DNA should EXACTLY be the same. But it's not. Humanity has too many genetic variations for Creationism to explain. Unless God in his almighty wisdom created eve into a totally different person with different genes, it still wouldn't explain how most of the human race doesn't have genetic problems from their kids interbreeding.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Memento mori

DarkLink2135
River Chocobo


Member 5122

Level 24.05

Apr 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 12:11 PM #77 of 114
That's exactly what I explained though. Assuming we were created by God, or a God in general, I would assume we started off with perfect DNA. Over time it's gotten less and less "perfect" so to speak via various transcription errors, which results in higher chances of birth defects from interbreeding. Way back at "the beginning," there wouldn't have been such a high chance from that.

EDIT^^^ Note that this is nothing more than an unfounded, untested theory. If the human race truly started out as 2 created human beings, this is how I would explain the problem of inbreeding.

I was speaking idiomatically.

FGSFDS!!!

Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM.
kinkymagic
I made more lousy pictures than any actor in history.


Member 1409

Level 16.87

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 01:57 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 06:57 PM 1 #78 of 114
Stop letting other people do every single bit of talking for you.
It's called backing up your claims. In some institutions (for example universities) it's actually encouraged.

Quote:
It's an extremely poor way to participate in any sort of debate, and it just makes you look stupid.
If backing up your views with academic evidence is stupid then what is intelligent?

Quote:
Posting a book or some scholarly article is not debating, it's just slapping something up in a lame attempt to make you look intelligent.
I was merely presenting you with some evidence of new genetic information. Why are you getting so worked up and making childish ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issues brought up by the paper? If I were debating with someone over masculinity in John Woo films and they showed me an article about it, I would focus my attention on the article rather than attacking the person for not coming up with an entire theory on their own without any outside influences.

So are you actually going to make a case against the article or continue to cover your ears while blasting people for bringing it to your attention?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?


“When I slap you you'll take it and like it.”
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:15 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 02:15 PM #79 of 114
Kinkymagic's been doing most of the talking on his own in this thread. He posted a link to sources which back up his claims and cannot be derided for doing so. If anything, "DarkLink," you are the one who's cruisin' for a bruisin' here.

FELIPE NO
DarkLink2135
River Chocobo


Member 5122

Level 24.05

Apr 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:21 PM #80 of 114
It's called backing up your claims. In some institutions (for example universities) it's actually encouraged.
The difference is you haven't made any claims. You've just posted a link. I've seen far too many people get away with that in the past, because they are too afraid to throw themselves into the fray.

Backing up claims with scholarly articles is absolutely great, if you have any claims to begin with. And no, saying "I believe X, here's why (hyperlink)" doesn't count.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

FGSFDS!!!
FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:23 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 09:23 PM #81 of 114
Originally Posted by DarkLink2135
Ex: we believe that reptiles, amphibies, birds, and mammals all comes from fishes which came to the land and evolved so it could survived. If this is true, then a fossil showing this transformation must be found.
And there are many fossils that were found showing many transformations. To expect there to be a fossil for every conceivable transformation is preposterous. We're lucky to have as many transitional fossils as we do considering the very slim chances animal skeletons had of being fossilized. A gap in a fossil record does not indicate there was a God in the least; it indicates that either A) the fossil is yet to be found or B) the animal never made it to the fossilization process to begin with.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
DarkLink2135
River Chocobo


Member 5122

Level 24.05

Apr 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:24 PM #82 of 114
And there are many fossils that were found showing many transformations. To expect there to be a fossil for every conceivable transformation is preposterous. We're lucky to have as many transitional fossils as we do considering the very slim chances animal skeletons had of being fossilized. A gap in a fossil record does not indicate there was a God in the least; it indicates that either A) the fossil is yet to be found or B) the animal never made it to the fossilization process to begin with.
Great job quoting THE WRONG PERSON.

Additional Spam:
How many other planets have we actually discovered?

Wow! Hundreds out of a estimated 30 Billion (and that's just earth-like planets in our galaxy)! Well that's me convinced that there is no life out there.
Is this what you were looking for?
I counted one meaningful contribution to the thread:
http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/po...ost425117.html

And even then he used a link to do his debating for him. I'm more than happy to debate with a person, I find it enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, but I'm not going to sit around and read an entire article to search for what they specifically wanted to point out because they are too lazy to do their own debating.

How ya doing, buddy?

FGSFDS!!!

Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 19, 2007 at 02:29 PM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
kinkymagic
I made more lousy pictures than any actor in history.


Member 1409

Level 16.87

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:32 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 07:32 PM 1 #83 of 114
And yet you still have not actually done made any critique of the scientific articles that profess to offer evidence for macro-evolution. Why not?

So far you have asked for evidence of macro-evolution and new genetic information, only to ignore it when it is presented to you and instead have chosen to attack the people who have given it to you.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.


“When I slap you you'll take it and like it.”

Last edited by kinkymagic; Apr 19, 2007 at 02:35 PM.
AlogiA
Βλέπω κάτι όνειρα...


Member 1866

Level 5.11

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:33 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 09:33 PM #84 of 114
Darwin's theory sounds more logical to me than the Bible.
I think that everyone started at zero. Higher life forms have evolved from lesser ones. Why should humans be an exception?

Most amazing jew boots
DarkLink2135
River Chocobo


Member 5122

Level 24.05

Apr 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:33 PM #85 of 114
I'm not debating with a lazy person. If you want to actually present an argument and then use those to back yourself up, then I'm more than happy to talk about macroevolution.

For someone who seems so hesitant to actually offer up any meaningful discussion, you sure seem to want others to take quite a bit of time out of their day.

I was speaking idiomatically.

FGSFDS!!!
kinkymagic
I made more lousy pictures than any actor in history.


Member 1409

Level 16.87

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:37 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 07:37 PM 1 #86 of 114
Quote:
I'm not debating with a lazy person.
I'm not asking you to debate with me, but with the evidences presented. So can you actually critique the examples, yes or no, and if you can what is your reasoning for not doing so other than the fact that you don't like the person who posted them?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?


“When I slap you you'll take it and like it.”
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 03:35 PM 1 #87 of 114
I choose not to believe it based on the incredible amount of complexity involved, and the literal impossibility of such things arriving via random mutations caused by background radiation.
Oh, now I understand the problem. It's not all that stuff you said about me twisting your words or not reading what you say at all.

Random mutations happen all the time without 'background radiation' having anything to do with it. Random mutations in skin cells is what causes the elderly to have wrinkles, and random mutations in other tissue causes cancer.

Background radiation. Wow.

Anyway, DarkLink, you did ask for evidence and to be educated. Why are you throwing a fit when education is presented to you? You should thank the kind man for his reading suggestions and continue to further educate yourself. To do anything else is tacky, really.

How ya doing, buddy?
Will
Good Chocobo


Member 4221

Level 18.81

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 04:37 PM 1 #88 of 114
...barring the obvious moral reasons, and the repulsion the very idea brings up =/...
What are the moral reasons? I'm not familiar with that aspect. I always assumed it was socialization, but now that I think about it, I can't recall any explanation beyond genetic defects (which have to do with inbreeding, not incest) and, "ew, gross, that's your mom." Now, socialization is obviously the cause of your disgust, but apparently even when social pressure works the other way, there is disinterest between members of the same household (who are not necessarily related), so it's largely an issue of instinct. So I ask again, what are the moral reasons?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
BMan
Larry Oji, Super Moderator, Judge, "Dirge for the Follin" Project Director, VG Frequency Creator


Member 22125

Level 2.00

Apr 2007


Old Apr 19, 2007, 06:28 PM #89 of 114
I think you're deluded if you believe otherwise. The theory of evolution isn't perfect, but it's a damn sure more plausible than any other idea we've come up with.
I definately don't think that the theory of evolution is more plausible than any other. In fact, its not more plausible than that of Creationism. People are happy to dismiss Creationism as they don't want to consider a higher power, and are happy to believe something which still has no scientific proof ie Evolution. All evoltuion is based on is this ridiculous time span where everything is meant to have happened...ofcourse, no one can dispute anything about it as no one has lived millions of years. So frankly, I think its just pure ignorance that people can dismiss Creationism because there is 'no scientific proof'..which, in fact, does exist...except that its the same with Evolution, when it comes down to it, no one was there.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Magi
Big Trouble


Member 541

Level 26.51

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 07:34 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 05:34 PM #90 of 114
That’s odd, because from what I remember that evolution by natural selection has always been backed up by multidisciplinary science (such as astronomy and geology, and more directly in biology), but generally are disinterested actually proving evolution, but the evidence simply coincided.

The problem with creationism is simply that, it isn’t science. It is base on the claim of religious text from a specific religion. As a dogma, this claim simply does not subject itself to the self correcting mechanism to better understand the physical universe that of which we called the “Scientific method”. Perhaps it would further individual’s understanding of the “supernatural” or “spiritual” universe, but that has no bearing on science that should deal with the “natural” world. Further more, I personally think if creationism base on one religious dogma is given its run in school, we might as well put in the rest of them, like how the humanity is actually created by a Chinese Snake Goddess name Nuwa, or perhaps we go with Hinduism or certain Buddhist view of circular existence where beginning and end doesn’t actually exist and universe is an illusion.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
♪♡
Thanks Seris!
sleipner
Rival


Member 2539

Level 7.28

Mar 2006


Old Apr 19, 2007, 08:42 PM #91 of 114
That's exactly what I explained though. Assuming we were created by God, or a God in general, I would assume we started off with perfect DNA. Over time it's gotten less and less "perfect" so to speak via various transcription errors, which results in higher chances of birth defects from interbreeding. Way back at "the beginning," there wouldn't have been such a high chance from that.

EDIT^^^ Note that this is nothing more than an unfounded, untested theory. If the human race truly started out as 2 created human beings, this is how I would explain the problem of inbreeding.
If it is true that we were perfect in the beginning and somehow became less perfect via transcription errors, the human race should have started degenerating a long time ago or become extinct. Becoming "not perfect" is not a good sign in the natural world. And if you say that transcription errors DO occur then you concede that genes CAN mutate. Either evolution has happened throughout the history of the earth (natural selection) or in your creationist theory evolution will happen because of these imperfections.

Just the example of the different skin colors cannot be explained without some sort of evolutionary process, or did Adam and Eve have multi colored babies as well?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Memento mori

DarkLink2135
River Chocobo


Member 5122

Level 24.05

Apr 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 12:53 AM #92 of 114
I'm not asking you to debate with me, but with the evidences presented. So can you actually critique the examples, yes or no, and if you can what is your reasoning for not doing so other than the fact that you don't like the person who posted them?
I could, but I'm not going to. I've got loads of other things that I need to read rather than an article you posted. Don't let the internet do your thinking for you. I'm debating with the evidences presented because you haven't offered up any debate in the first place. If you can't think for yourself there's no reason for me to debate w/ you or anything you post.

I think you are perfectly well capable of making very intelligent debate just based on posts I have read of yours, and I'm clueless as to why you won't.

Oh, now I understand the problem. It's not all that stuff you said about me twisting your words or not reading what you say at all.

Random mutations happen all the time without 'background radiation' having anything to do with it. Random mutations in skin cells is what causes the elderly to have wrinkles, and random mutations in other tissue causes cancer.

Background radiation. Wow.

Anyway, DarkLink, you did ask for evidence and to be educated. Why are you throwing a fit when education is presented to you? You should thank the kind man for his reading suggestions and continue to further educate yourself. To do anything else is tacky, really.
I glanced through the links and while they are interesting, I also find it interesting that you encouraging people to just post links and not debate. Last time I tried to do that here I got reamed for it, so I avoid it now. I used to think it was a decent way of debating, but I realize better now.

Yet another example of you twisting my words. Either you exist on these boards simply to mess around with debates or you really have no reading comprehension at all. Or perhaps I'm just not explicitly stating enough things. It's beginning to get very irritating. I gave a single example of what sometimes does cause background mutations. I'm not sure why you automatically think that I am saying that's the only thing I believe causes mutations.

Wrinkles aren't caused in most cases by random mutations. Parts of wrinkling are caused by sun damage from UV radiation, sure, but that isn't the major cause. I have no idea where the hell you are getting all your information, because it's bizzare. Wrinkles are caused because with normal aging, less epidermal cells are produced. Because of this, moisture can't be kept in as effectively, which causes dry skin. There's damage to most layers of the skin, less collagen is produced, the fibers that provide elasticity wear out, etc. I can't remember all that goes on at the moment, but basically the skin sort of "breaks down" in function. Fat cells decrease in size, which means they can't fill in all the damage that happens to the other layers of the skin.

Cancer CAN be caused, among other things, by mutated genes, but we don't know, at least that I know, what causes them to mutate in all cases. Sometimes people are born with these mutated genes, sometimes not. I would certainly think that "background radiation" could lead to this. Too much UV radiation causes skin cancer.

What are the moral reasons? I'm not familiar with that aspect. I always assumed it was socialization, but now that I think about it, I can't recall any explanation beyond genetic defects (which have to do with inbreeding, not incest) and, "ew, gross, that's your mom." Now, socialization is obviously the cause of your disgust, but apparently even when social pressure works the other way, there is disinterest between members of the same household (who are not necessarily related), so it's largely an issue of instinct. So I ask again, what are the moral reasons?
I'm not sure why you think there aren't any. Society sort of creates it's own morals as it goes, incest being one of the taboos. I cannot, for one, give you any distinct reason as to why it is immoral other than society's views of it, but I don't think there is any doubt that it's an immoral act.

If it is true that we were perfect in the beginning and somehow became less perfect via transcription errors, the human race should have started degenerating a long time ago or become extinct. Becoming "not perfect" is not a good sign in the natural world. And if you say that transcription errors DO occur then you concede that genes CAN mutate. Either evolution has happened throughout the history of the earth (natural selection) or in your creationist theory evolution will happen because of these imperfections.

Just the example of the different skin colors cannot be explained without some sort of evolutionary process, or did Adam and Eve have multi colored babies as well?
Like I said, it's an unfounded theory that I really haven't thought about much. Regardless, you have to remember this is based on what is ultimately faith, and while I hate to do it, I can alway resort to the "God made it do that" answer . Scientifically speaking though, I suppose genetic decay could be modeled from the beginning via a more exponential curve rather than straight up linear. I also never said genes couldn't mutate - I did say that I don't believe we have any reason to believe they can mutate in meaningful ways that will pass on to the next generation. Is it possible? In my opinion, I'd say no due to what literally amounts as mathmatically impossible odds.

Also evolution does not happen via the forces of natural selection. Natural selection describes a process whereby the gene pool DECREASES, not increases. The classic example of long and short-necked giraffes - gradually the short-necked gene gets weeded out. I'm sure that for awhile it would remain a recessive gene, but after a long enough time, this would disappear. Note that I do not know little about hereditary-related parts of evolution. I believe that over time recessive genes DO disappear, but they could remain in the body. Anybody who knows this for sure, please do speak up.

Skin color I would say, that over time, people's melanin production gradually increased or decreased with a population's sun exposure. I really do not know though.

And I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to convince me that the Creationist theory is wrong, than you may as well give up now. I imagine most people on these boards are at an age where their views aren't going to be changed much, if at all. The point of a debate when you are at that point is to simply make the other party think a bit. You have made me think but I'm not entirely sure that's what your point is. And that matter is simply because ultimately, Creationism at it's core relies on faith. I know I can't scientifically explain away every last aspect of the theory, and I'm not going to try.

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

I think I may end up ducking out of this debate. It's been incredibly fun, and enlightening, but I've pushed this topic beyond it's normal lifespan, and I sense people are starting getting pissed just simply because of what I believe. I'm getting pissed because I'm having to explain things that should be evidently clear. If this goes too much further it's going to erupt into a flame war. People have basically said all they are going to say, and I'm spending most of my post reiterating what I've already said.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

FGSFDS!!!
Interrobang
What I learned in Boating Class is


Member 411

Level 18.92

Mar 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 12:56 AM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 11:56 PM #93 of 114
I would consider a gain of genetic information to be any meaningful, beneficial, genetic code added to an organism via natural means.
Define "beneficial" and explain why this particular kind of genetic code is somehow different from other types to make it impossible to obtain.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Why Am I Allowed to Have Gray Paint
Fookin' Prawns!


Member 56

Level 24.48

Mar 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 01:22 PM Local time: Apr 20, 2007, 06:22 PM #94 of 114
Some causes of genetic mutation:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units...mutationbg.cfm

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
kinkymagic
I made more lousy pictures than any actor in history.


Member 1409

Level 16.87

Mar 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 04:48 PM Local time: Apr 20, 2007, 09:48 PM 1 #95 of 114
It's pointless. Unless you did all the research and wrote up the paper yourself he'll disregard it.

FELIPE NO


“When I slap you you'll take it and like it.”
Why Am I Allowed to Have Gray Paint
Fookin' Prawns!


Member 56

Level 24.48

Mar 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 05:04 PM Local time: Apr 20, 2007, 10:04 PM #96 of 114
It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA. Yes, we do consume them; that's the basis of carbon dating in all living things.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
kinkymagic
I made more lousy pictures than any actor in history.


Member 1409

Level 16.87

Mar 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 05:12 PM Local time: Apr 20, 2007, 10:12 PM 1 #97 of 114
It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA. Yes, we do consume them; that's the basis of carbon dating in all living things.
You regularly eat radioactive substances?

How ya doing, buddy?


“When I slap you you'll take it and like it.”
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old Apr 20, 2007, 05:45 PM #98 of 114
Cancer CAN be caused, among other things, by mutated genes, but we don't know, at least that I know, what causes them to mutate in all cases. Sometimes people are born with these mutated genes, sometimes not. I would certainly think that "background radiation" could lead to this. Too much UV radiation causes skin cancer.
Dude.... dude. Stop fronting. I set out to prove that people who don't believe in evolution have a poor grasp on evolution, and I've succeeded (based on case study) wildly. Not only do you not really know what evolution is, but your biology is pretty weak, and while we're at it you might want to work on your statistics as well.

And 'debating through links' is not what kinkymagic's doing. No, don't argue with me. This is not what you hope it is. Educate yourself and for christ's sake son. You tell me you only used 'background radiation' as an example and then you don't shut up about radiation causing wrinkles and cancer. Jesus christ, this isn't a debate, it's a slaughter fagdance man desperately hiding his willful ignorance.

Additional Spam:
It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA.
I didn't say that. I mean, unless you're DarkLink2135's dupe, I really wasn't talking about that or about you.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by Sarag; Apr 20, 2007 at 05:51 PM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
Plainsman
Caribbean Cat


Member 14706

Level 7.34

Oct 2006


Old Apr 21, 2007, 05:18 PM Local time: Apr 21, 2007, 07:18 PM #99 of 114
This is an excellent book that I highly recommend to all who have participated in this thread: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-S...7193138&sr=8-1

The Author, Francis Collins, was the head of the Human Genome Project which mapped our entire genetic code -- one of the premier scientists of our day. He's also a christian and evolutionist. Although the focus of the book isn't "Proving" evolution, he does put forth many of the examples we use that shows all or most of the evidence we've collected thus far certainly suggest evolution actually happened. As we learn more and more about DNA evolutionary theory becomes even more interesting, and this man is on the forefront of that research.

As for the argument about the addition of genetic material: It appears that gene duplication is one mechanism that has allowed increasing complexity in organisms. Take, for instance, the human coagulation pathway. Here is a basic diagram:
http://dpalm.med.uth.tmc.edu/faculty...js/pathway.gif

The early intelligent design proponents argued that this pathway was so complex that it could not have evolved without a designer. However, imagine an organism with a low-pressure circulatory system -- of which there are many in nature. It would require a much simpler coagulation cascade, perhaps consisting of only one protein. Then, through the course of replicating cells, the gene coding for that single protein duplicates -- once again, this happens commonly and can be observed.

Now with two copies of the same gene, one of these copies is free to mutate at will (because the good copy will still perform the same function). After many copies, duplications, and mutations, you would find an organism that generates a wide variety of different, but related, proteins all functioning in a very similar capacity. And this is exactly what we find in the human coagulation cascade -- this would represent a gain in genetic material, a positive mutation, an explanation of how a complex system like this could evolve, and also fits amazingly well with what we know about the development of the vertebrate circulatory system.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
DarkLink2135
River Chocobo


Member 5122

Level 24.05

Apr 2006


Old Apr 21, 2007, 05:38 PM #100 of 114
Quote:
And 'debating through links' is not what kinkymagic's doing. No, don't argue with me. This is not what you hope it is. Educate yourself and for christ's sake son. You tell me you only used 'background radiation' as an example and then you don't shut up about radiation causing wrinkles and cancer. Jesus christ, this isn't a debate, it's a slaughter fagdance man desperately hiding his willful ignorance.
Case in point, you've been WRONG about damn near everything you have posted, including wrinkles. I am sorry you have to hide your own ignorance and inability to read behind pathetic flaming, though.

For some reason you have been absolutely convinced that YOU know the answers to life, the universe, and everything, while the world's brightest minds don't know those answers for sure. That's a pretty arrogant stance to take.

If you don't agree with me, fine, but stop acting as though the entire evolutionary theory were proven fact.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

FGSFDS!!!

Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 21, 2007 at 05:47 PM.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Do you believe in human evolution?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.