It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Comments (Page 5,383)

Showing posts 107,641 - 107,660 of133,125
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109680
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "f@ck off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"
I would have to agree with that. The creation of a hoax does not invalidate the actual religion of Christianity.

Just as, the creation of a hoax like Piltdown Man does not invalidate the science of evolution. Yet seventy odd years after its exposure (by evolutionary scientists, of course), creationists still cannot stop going on about it.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109681
Feb 3, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
I foresee long dence repetitions, of the he said/she said. and than aunt maud said etc.
Must be viral on that island.(Cleaned up the sea yet? And how about gay bashing and general homofobia. And oh what's the rapestatistic again?)
GH DID NOT SAY THAT.*
God Himself wrote:
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY
The Dude wrote:
Funny, and here I was thinking the primary attribute of intelligence was cognitive ability, not efficiency
God Himself wrote:
... EFFICIENCY.
The Dude wrote:
...it would... be demonstrating intelligence by performing that task.
*God Himself: In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.
---
It's simple: you did not specify in what way efficiency would be tested.
This going to take another hundred post:
YOU did NOT write WHAT The Dude wrote.
Even if you intended it, you STILL DID NOT WRITE IT DOWN.
So you are dishonest.
How hard is that to understand?!
What did the Dude write, that I did not write that he wrote?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109682
Feb 3, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I would wager that Jesus would say the exact same thing about the novel written about him.
And what if he did?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109683
Feb 3, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you respond by inventing even more?
No. As we already established the Bible has leeway in "interpretation".

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109684
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
And what if he did?
Indeed.. what if he did say that in the interim of 300+ years between his death and the canonization of the New Testament his biography was mythologized and his message was garbled? Certainly it would have more importance to you than to me - but then I've been known to break mirrors, spill salt, stroll past black cats, open umbrellas indoors and walk under ladders without a second thought.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109685
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "f@ck off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"
In which case biology has no reason to be "fracking ashamed" of Piltdown Man. Otherwise if it did it would mean you were a hypocrite.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109686
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, using intelligence, humans went from the discovering electromanetic theory to a supercomputer in just over a century.
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
Chimney1 wrote:
Random mutation plus natural selection, following millions of blind alleys and with no goal "in mind", because, no mind of course, blundering upon a creature capable of our level of abstraction in 3,500,000,000 years, give or take an eon. Might never have happened, and for all the wonders that life has produced, intelligence like ours appears to be nothing but a sideshow.
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.

That bit isn't even intelligible.

How many sentences were you intending to compose?

How many ideas were you intending to express?

You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
Chimney1 wrote:
You might call the process resilient, but hardly intelligent, and certainly not efficient!
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.

Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.

FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109687
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that you agree with me...
I do not.
God Himself wrote:
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?
To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.
I am not being daft nor dishonest; you simply lack the capacity to fathom the import of my expression.
It has no "import".

The sun "performs" nuclear fusion. Perhaps it even does it extremely efficiently? Or perhaps not. Either way, it does it. That still does not indicate any intelligence on the part of the sun or invisible Jews. Though I admire the mental gymnastics on your part in attempting to avoid the simple fact that you have no mechanisms for your proposed intelligence nor evidence for it.
God Himself wrote:
I'm glad you are. If nature is inherently intelligent or is being guided by and intelligent agent: all the set of actions and responses that are identified as "intelligent" will be observable in the natural world and natural processes.
But in order for us to proceed; we must first agree on what intelligence is and how we identify it.
In order to do that, we must first create a criteria by which we measure and identify intelligence/intelligent influence.
I ASSERT THAT:
The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.
In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."
Shall we agree on that or do you possess a different view?
I already made it clear that I disagreed. "Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works efficiently. Yet above you just stated it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works. Now you're back to saying efficiency is what matters. I claim neither are relevant as evidence of intelligence as they are merely being used as weasel-words in order to avoid directly explaining the mechanisms responsible.
God Himself wrote:
Goddid it with an evolution methodology.*shrug*
In which case you have no issue with common ancestry. God is then handled by Occam's Razor.
God Himself wrote:
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.
You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
And I have no intention to since that is not our claim. Animate elements? Yes. Just go and visit any maternity wing. Or forest for that matter. Inanimate? No. Though I doubt anything could really be described that way until the universe itself dies.
God Himself wrote:
The Attributes of God are continuously demonstrated in nature.
But we all have the responsibility of deciding what is sufficient to convince us. That you dont see what I accept as proof to be sufficient for you, is your own decision.
Your above opinion is irrelevant to the scientific method. You are claiming that subjective claims are enough. The rest of us non-fundies do not care. If they are demonstrated in nature you should be able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method. If you are only describing observable natural phenomena and using it as a metaphor for God then God is scientifically meaningless, though it may give you a philosophical/theological happy.

Hence thus far the best you can provide is God as a metaphor. I don't accept that as evidence because it is not scientific.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109688
Feb 3, 2013
 
coco wrote:
<quoted text>
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.
Except the problem is that we are able to refute him, and he is unable to refute us. He then lies a lot then acts dishonestly in order to avoid tackling the subject in an intellectually honest manner. He is therefore taken to task for his behaviour. He then refuses to talk to some people for being too "mean", although there have been many times he has boasted about is prowess at being a macho-man. Understandably we are left unimpressed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109689
Feb 3, 2013
 
coco wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean he has no balls? Is that the fruit you are speaking of?
Well that's one way of putting it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109690
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to agree with that. The creation of a hoax does not invalidate the actual religion of Christianity.
Just as, the creation of a hoax like Piltdown Man does not invalidate the science of evolution. Yet seventy odd years after its exposure (by evolutionary scientists, of course), creationists still cannot stop going on about it.
Yet apparently we should be "fracking ashamed" of Piltdown.

Me maybe, since I'm a Brit.

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109691
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
<quoted text>
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.
That bit isn't even intelligible.
How many sentences were you intending to compose?
How many ideas were you intending to express?
You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
But of course, your complete and total ignorance of a subject is quite obviously a valid critique.

The only reason behind you not understanding his post is due to your simple lack of knowledge of the subject. Biology is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Godmagic as an alternative don't know the first thing about it.
God Himself wrote:
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.
Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.
Tell that to all the species who have gone extinct.

This would include 99% of all life that has ever lived during the past 3.5 to 4 billion years of biological history.

But thanks for demonstrating for the second time that you still can't provide a better explanation. We say evolution happened, you cry BS, then you claim Goddidit with magic - by using evolution.
God Himself wrote:
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
You could have simply said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

Instead you just said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it while the efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

This is in a post where you critiqued another poster for being "unintelligible".

Man, you certainly got it in for irony meters today...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109692
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
<quoted text>
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.
That bit isn't even intelligible.
How many sentences were you intending to compose?
How many ideas were you intending to express?
You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
<quoted text>
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.
Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
We are already hundreds of times more efficient than whatever caused life to be, without a doubt. So if there is some god, by saying this was all by design, you are insulting that god. You should be more careful with that, I doubt whatever deity might exist would be happy to have this mess blamed on it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109693
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
<quoted text>
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.
That bit isn't even intelligible.
How many sentences were you intending to compose?
How many ideas were you intending to express?
You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
<quoted text>
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.
Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
Yes, your argument is far more eloquent and forceful when you type entire sentences in CAPS LOCK. Learned that at Creotard School, did you? Yet it seem that sentences of more than twelve words still confound you.

I will say it more simply, again, just for you.

You made the already stupid claim that efficiency equals intelligence.

I pointed out that even limited human intelligence was capable of moving from the first understanding of electromagnetic theory to building complex supercomputers in a century. That is, 100 years.

Most efficiency experts would agree that some essential elements of efficiency are time, elimination of waste, and elimination of redundancy.

However:

The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creating a human took 3,500,000,000 years. The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of evolution stuffed around with giant reptiles for 180 million years before scrapping them for mammals. Whole orders of armoured fish, giant amphibians, trilobites, pterosaurs, smilodons, giant wombats and sloths...

The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in an extinction rate estimated to be in excess of 99%

The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in design flaws that would see a Toyota engineer (though perhaps not a GM one) fired. The laryngeal nerve the giraffe. The overly complex wing of an ostrich. The 1000-odd useless genes on the whale genome related to a now non-functioning sense of smell. Useless eyes on cave rats, covered permanently with skin.

Evolution is many things marvelous things, but "efficient" it is not.

My apologies for the slightly unusual grammatical structure of the last sentence. Again, I should explain that this is a rhetorical device. I hope you can cope.

Now do you understand, moron?

God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109694
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
It has no "import".
The sun "performs" nuclear fusion. Perhaps it even does it extremely efficiently? Or perhaps not. Either way, it does it. That still does not indicate any intelligence on the part of the sun or invisible Jews. Though I admire the mental gymnastics on your part in attempting to avoid the simple fact that you have no mechanisms for your proposed intelligence nor evidence for it.
Are you gay?

Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
The Dude wrote:
..."Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works...
See?

Is that logical?

Is that intellectually honest?

Is that fair thinking?

Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.

THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.

And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.

Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
The Dude wrote:
. Yet above you just stated it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works.
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
The Dude wrote:
Now you're back to saying efficiency is what matters.
Wasnt that always my argument?

Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
The Dude wrote:
I claim neither are relevant as evidence of intelligence as they are merely being used as weasel-words in order to avoid directly explaining the mechanisms responsible.
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.

So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.

Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.

Indeed, one fool makes many.
The Dude wrote:
In which case you have no issue with common ancestry.
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
God Himself wrote:
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.
You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
The Dude wrote:
And I have no intention to since that is not our claim...
MY claim?

"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]

You dont even know anything about science, do you?
The Dude wrote:
...If they are demonstrated in nature you should be able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method.
Right.

And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?

So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible" ( wikipedia.com )?

Got it.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
The Dude wrote:
If you are only describing observable natural phenomena and using it as a metaphor for God then God is scientifically meaningless, though it may give you a philosophical/theological happy.
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?

LOL!!!!
Sugar20

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109695
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you gay?
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
<quoted text>
See?
Is that logical?
Is that intellectually honest?
Is that fair thinking?
Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
<quoted text>
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
<quoted text>
Wasnt that always my argument?
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
<quoted text>
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Indeed, one fool makes many.
<quoted text>
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]
You dont even know anything about science, do you?
<quoted text>
Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible" ( wikipedia.com )?
Got it.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
<quoted text>
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?
LOL!!!!
I'm sorry; I'm having problems with my memory and I'm trying to recall your name; was it Donald Edge? My apologies for not remembering!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109696
Feb 3, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
... Biology is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Godmagic as an alternative don't know the first thing about it.
Godmagic is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Biology as an alternative don't know the first thing about it either.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
Tell that to all the species who have gone extinct.
Why, didnt you say "" Tell that to the species that are still surviving?

See, YOU ARE PREDISPOSED TO ASSUMING THE NEGATIVE AS IT RELATES TO GOD.
The Dude wrote:
This would include 99% of all life that has ever lived during the past 3.5 to 4 billion years of biological history.
But thanks for demonstrating for the second time that you still can't provide a better explanation. We say evolution happened, you cry BS, then you claim Goddidit with magic - by using evolution.
I dont have a problem with evolution.

Evolution is THE STUDY (not the fact, but the STUDY) "...of how living things have changed over time SINCE life FIRST AROSE..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]

While even God Himself spoke of how the earth would be transformed after the Eden incident (as such), I have no reason to take a stance AGAINST evolution theory.

My problem is with dumb-@sses who think that "there is no need for God", is a conclusion regarding the role of God in the Natural world. Idiots!
The Dude wrote:
You could have simply said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."
Instead you just said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it while the efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."
This is in a post where you critiqued another poster for being "unintelligible".
Man, you certainly got it in for irony meters today...
Show me the post where I wrote that.

And even if I did write that; wouldnt you be able to make sense of it, seeing the obvious repetition?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109697
Feb 3, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We are already hundreds of times more efficient than whatever caused life to be, without a doubt...
You die and decay;

The thing which caused life keeps causing life;

Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Level 3

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109698
Feb 3, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except the problem is that we are able to refute him, and he is unable to refute us. He then lies a lot then acts dishonestly in order to avoid tackling the subject in an intellectually honest manner. He is therefore taken to task for his behaviour. He then refuses to talk to some people for being too "mean", although there have been many times he has boasted about is prowess at being a macho-man. Understandably we are left unimpressed.
Now that's interesting! Be careful, there is a guy running around posing as different people and I think his name is Donald Edge, as I'm trying to recall. Just a heads up!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109699
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...You made the already... claim that efficiency equals intelligence.
Yes.
Chimney1 wrote:
I pointed out that even limited human intelligence was capable of moving from the first understanding of electromagnetic theory to building complex supercomputers in a century.
Thus agreeing with me. Now what?
Chimney1 wrote:
Most efficiency experts would agree that some essential elements of efficiency are time, elimination of waste, and elimination of redundancy.
All of which intelligence does.
Chimney1 wrote:
However:
The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creating a human took 3,500,000,000 years. The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of evolution stuffed around with giant reptiles for 180 million years before scrapping them for mammals. Whole orders of armoured fish, giant amphibians, trilobites, pterosaurs, smilodons, giant wombats and sloths...
Amazing, isnt it?
Chimney1 wrote:
The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in an extinction rate estimated to be in excess of 99%
Yet species are still alive and surviving.

Isnt that just Miraculous?!!
Chimney1 wrote:
The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in design flaws that would see a Toyota engineer (though perhaps not a GM one) fired.
It also resulted in the "fine-tuning" of the universe is certain ways, to facilitate the emergence of structure and life too. Examples of this include but are not limited to:

a. ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
b. strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
c. elative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
d. ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;

But you just conveniently forgot all that didnt you?
Chimney1 wrote:
The laryngeal nerve the giraffe. The overly complex wing of an ostrich. The 1000-odd useless genes on the whale genome related to a now non-functioning sense of smell. Useless eyes on cave rats, covered permanently with skin.
Evolution is many things marvelous things, but "efficient" it is not.
I might agree, IF you admit that you are one of the retarded entities whos existence demonstrates the in-efficiency of evolution.
Chimney1 wrote:
My apologies for the slightly unusual grammatical structure of the last sentence. Again, I should explain that this is a rhetorical device. I hope you can cope.
Now do you understand, moron?
No. I dont speak moron.

Neither do my friends, so I wouldnt understand when you speak moron.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 107,641 - 107,660 of133,125
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••