If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Jesus will not be riding his dinosaur in Texas   (dallasnews.com) divider line 908
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26975 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:02 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



908 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-27 04:06:04 PM
colon_pow: the actions the school board has taken in tx show that the educators have chosen to tell the students what to think, rather than to teach them how to think.

Do you have any actual argument of substance, based upon actual fact? Thus far you have posited entirely hypothetical "strawmen" scenarios based upon demonstrably dishonest assertions. Your above claim, a vague accusation with no references to any specific fact, does not constitute a valid position.
 
2009-03-27 04:08:56 PM
colon_pow: the actions the school board has taken in tx show that the educators have chosen to tell the students what to think, rather than to teach them how to think.

rather unscientific, but in this case, i realize from your points of view, that this action is regrettably, necessary.


Why do creationists have to lie to make an argument?
 
2009-03-27 04:16:39 PM
maddogdelta: colon_pow: the actions the school board has taken in tx show that the educators have chosen to tell the students what to think, rather than to teach them how to think.

rather unscientific, but in this case, i realize from your points of view, that this action is regrettably, necessary.

Why do creationists have to lie to make an argument?


read the article, maddog, i'm not making this shiat up.


fta
Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a longtime curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be covered in science classes and textbooks for those subjects.


teacher: the weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution will no longer be covered in science class. any questions? wait, never mind.
 
2009-03-27 04:19:46 PM
colon_pow: the actions the school board has taken in tx show that the educators have chosen to tell the students what to think, rather than to teach them how to think.

rather unscientific, but in this case, i realize from your points of view, that this action is regrettably, necessary.


Educational policy is not scientific. It is not mathematical. Or literate. Or religious. Or artistic. It is dependent on what is agreed on will make that region's students competitive and be successful in life. You can tell students what to think and teach them how to think at the same time.

I'll even use your format:

Student: Evolution is an Atheist lie
Teacher: no it's not. Don't bring that kind of talk into this classroom; it's off topic. Now let's discuss how Darwin developed his ideas and what modern advances have corroborated them.

If schools aren't teaching Scientific Method, then that's a failing of that school or school system. You tell students what to think by nature of curricula. If you don't teach them how to think as well, then you are just teaching them poorly.
 
2009-03-27 04:21:18 PM
colon_pow: the actions the school board has taken in tx show that the educators have chosen to tell the students what to think, rather than to teach them how to think.

Have you read the new Standards? I have. They're available here

What you're looking for is found in:

Text of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 112, Subchapter A
Text of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 112, Subchapter B
Text of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 112, Subchapter C

Please let us know where you find fault, specifically where kids are being told facts and not how to determine facts.

Is it where it says "The student is expected to: Ask questions about organisms, objects, and events observed in the natural world; plan and conduct simple descriptive investigations such as ways objects move; collect data and make observations using simple equipment such as hand lenses, primary balances and non-standard measurement tools; record and organize data using pictures, numbers words and; communicate observations and provide reasons for explanations using student-generated data from simple descriptive investigations"?

Are we indoctrinating yet?

How about this stuff;

"Analyze and evalutate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography and homologies, including anatomical, molecular and developmental; analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record; analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals; how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offpsring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success; evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity in and among species and; the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutations and recombination"


Go on, take a look, tell us where you would change the wording of the TEKS.
 
2009-03-27 04:21:24 PM
colon_pow: teacher: the weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution will no longer be covered in science class. any questions? wait, never mind.

The weaknesses in Evolutionary theory get discussed in Scientific journals around the world all the time and are usually accessible from a library or for a small fee. Any questions?
 
2009-03-27 04:22:21 PM
colon_pow: the actions the school board has taken in tx show that the educators have chosen to tell the students what to think, rather than to teach them how to think.

Which actions, by which members?
 
2009-03-27 04:22:26 PM
colon_pow: read the article, maddog, i'm not making this shiat up.

Yes you are.

The whole "strengths and weaknesses" is a smokescreen put out by the discovery institute to try to get Cdesign put into public school science classes.

What will be forbidden is teachers teaching Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 (whichever story they want to claim is the real creation story) in science class. That is it.

Those of us who are not anti science have been asking for any of you creationists to post real weaknesses. You, I must admit, at least came up with the standard lame assed ones that Ken Ham does, but those can be easily dismissed by a schmuck like me who isn't even in the field.

If any student brings up any of those "weaknesses" the teacher is allowed to explain the truth to the student. What the teacher won't be allowed to do is say "You're right, Billy! Genesis says all this science stuff is bunk!"

Why do Creationists have to lie to convince people of their side of the story?
 
2009-03-27 04:25:03 PM
colon_pow: teacher: the weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution will no longer be covered in science class. any questions? wait, never mind.

"The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

has been replaced with

"The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing"

Please tell me what your problem is with the new language, and how you believe it prohibits the discussion of these supposed failings of evolutionary theory.
 
2009-03-27 04:25:42 PM
colon_pow: weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution

1) The theory has progressed since Darwin.
2) For the modern theory: which weaknesses?

PC LOAD LETTER: The weaknesses in Evolutionary theory get discussed in Scientific journals around the world all the time

Your turn, science kid: which weaknesses? =)
 
2009-03-27 04:30:06 PM
I'm beginning to think colon_pow is Jack Chick's login.
 
2009-03-27 04:31:12 PM
hey, where's Kilted?
 
2009-03-27 04:34:13 PM
abb3w: Your turn, science kid: which weaknesses? =)

How about the fact that the theory of evolution doesn't accurately predict the invention of the Fitch2 Downstrike typewriter? Or why can't the theory of evolution contain valid resources in helping me with my NCAA picks?

Why can't I use the theory of evolution to draft a better beer? (Actually it can, fark).

Or in abb3w terms, "Presumes a definition of 'weakness' has been determined."
 
2009-03-27 04:34:54 PM
Renart: I'm beginning to think colon_pow is Jack Chick's login.

Oh hell no. Jack Chick isn't nearly as calm and even-tempered as colon_pow, despite his bullshiat. Chick would have started flat-out ranting about winning souls or telling us how Catholics aren't Christian, or that Muslims worship some wacky moon god.
 
2009-03-27 04:41:14 PM
colon_pow: teacher: the weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution will no longer be covered in science class.

The referenced article states that a rule requiring that "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution be taught in public school science cirriculum. It makes no menation that teaching any such "weaknesses" are expressly forbidden. You are lying about the subject matter. You have also not identified any actual "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution that could be addressed.
 
2009-03-27 04:41:34 PM
JBLars: Renart: I'm beginning to think colon_pow is Jack Chick's login.

Oh hell no. Jack Chick isn't nearly as calm and even-tempered as colon_pow, despite his bullshiat. Chick would have started flat-out ranting about winning souls or telling us how Catholics aren't Christian, or that Muslims worship some wacky moon god.


Fair enough. It's the way colon_pow caricatures biology teachers as hysterical authoritarians shouting down students who dare to ask questions that seemed like something out of a Chick tract. But this thread has put Chick tracts on my mind.

/Haw haw!
 
2009-03-27 04:41:54 PM
abb3w: PC LOAD LETTER: The weaknesses in Evolutionary theory get discussed in Scientific journals around the world all the time

Your turn, science kid: which weaknesses? =)


The one I was thinking of is the recent discovery wherein genetic changes in evolution were thought to be large and additive, wherein they are now seen to be small and mutative. So instead of whole new genes being created for new functions, old ones are repurposed for new functions. The level of detail that the "weaknesses" now are on, are so far beyond the level of 99% of the lay population that it's silly to even discuss them, which was my secret gotcha.
 
2009-03-27 04:42:33 PM
colon_pow: hey, where's Kilted?


Possible sighting:

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 04:44:06 PM
Dimensio: colon_pow: teacher: the weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution will no longer be covered in science class.

The referenced article states that a rule requiring that "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution be taught in public school science cirriculum. It makes no menation that teaching any such "weaknesses" are expressly forbidden. You are lying about the subject matter. You have also not identified any actual "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution that could be addressed.


uh uhhhh, you're the liar, liar.
i identified "weaknesses" you lying liar. stop lying.
good grief.
 
2009-03-27 04:47:10 PM
did i win?
 
2009-03-27 04:48:29 PM
colon_pow: did i win?

I like pudding.
 
2009-03-27 04:49:06 PM
maddogdelta: Malaclypse the Younger: CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.

psssst....look at the pictures...


I fark at work. I don't see most of the pics.
 
2009-03-27 04:50:46 PM
LlamaFan:

Consider two numbers a and b

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )
a + b = b
b + b = b

2*b = b
2 = 1


Well you can consider this, but it is truly wrong. Consider with numbers:

A = 2
if A = B
then B=2
thus:
2 = 2
2^2 = 2*2
2^2 - 2^2 = 2*2 - 2^2
( 2 + 2 )( 2 - 2 ) = 2 ( 2 - 2 )
2 + 2 DOES NOT EQUAL 2 IT EQUALS 4
2*2 DOES NOT EQUAL 2 IT EQUALS 4
thus:
2 DOES NOT EQUAL 1

Geez...was it really that hard?
 
2009-03-27 04:52:51 PM
colon_pow:

One issue you bring up is very real, although I suspect you only pointed it out by accident.

Student: Question that shows I'm thinking?

Teacher: Shut up! I barely understand what's in the book, please don't expose my ignorance!

This applies not only to questions about Darwin's theory, but also to why 1 + 1 really = 2. I went to school in the 80's and late 90's in Appalachia, and the number of teachers I had who could answer any question that wasn't in the teacher's edition was pretty low. Maybe if the quality of rural education had been better 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
 
2009-03-27 05:11:17 PM
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
Complexity IS NOT a sign of intelligence.
 
2009-03-27 05:11:53 PM
colon_pow: uh uhhhh, you're the liar, liar.

I am not lying. The policy referenced in the article does not prohibit a discussion of "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Your assertion that it does is, therefore, a lie.


i identified "weaknesses" you lying liar. stop lying.

You have identified no actual weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
 
2009-03-27 05:20:55 PM
TUAlan: Well you can consider this, but it is truly wrong. Consider with numbers:

A = 2
if A = B
then B=2
thus:
2 = 2
2^2 = 2*2
2^2 - 2^2 = 2*2 - 2^2
( 2 + 2 )( 2 - 2 ) = 2 ( 2 - 2 )
2 + 2 DOES NOT EQUAL 2 IT EQUALS 4
2*2 DOES NOT EQUAL 2 IT EQUALS 4
thus:
2 DOES NOT EQUAL 1

Geez...was it really that hard?


Actually you're missing the important part. That's the line ABOVE that.

( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )

If a = b, a - b = 0. (a - b) * anything = 0.
So the two sides of the equation at that point are 0 = 0.
What's REALLY egregious about that is that in order to go from ( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b ) to a + b = b, you have to divide both sides by ( a - b ). What did I say that was again? Zero?

halshop.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-03-27 05:21:03 PM
Dimensio: colon_pow: uh uhhhh, you're the liar, liar.

I am not lying. The policy referenced in the article does not prohibit a discussion of "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Your assertion that it does is, therefore, a lie.


i identified "weaknesses" you lying liar. stop lying.

You have identified no actual weaknesses of the theory of evolution.


now if you promise to put down that goal post i'll identify weakness in THE THEORY
 
2009-03-27 05:22:38 PM
Ulyses: Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.

That's OK. Newton didn't get that one right, either, and Thomas Edison didn't do much better, nor did Benjamin Franklin.

Seriously, were you dropped?
 
2009-03-27 05:23:18 PM
colon_pow: now if you promise to put down that goal post i'll identify weakness in THE THEORY

I am holding no "goal post", nor am I preventing you from identifying any weaknesses in the theory of evolution. In fact, I have previously solicited references to such weaknesses. Additionally, even were you to identify an actual weakness it would not alter the fact that your previous assertion regarding the voted-upon education policy is demonstrably false; you claimed that the board of education policy prohibits discussion of any "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution, when it does not.
 
2009-03-27 05:31:16 PM
colon_pow: now if you promise to put down that goal post i'll identify weakness in THE THEORY

Go for it brother.
 
2009-03-27 05:31:40 PM
Weakness 1: It ain't in my Bible.

Weakness 2: I ain't no goddamned monkey.

Weakness 3: If man came from monkeys, why is there still monkeys?

Weakness 4: Yeah, well, maybe those damned nasterisks came from monkeys, but God made the white man.

I'll just leave these here. If you'd like to continue, just keep in mind whose arguments you're really parroting.
 
2009-03-27 05:33:27 PM
colon_pow: hey, where's Kilted?

Swamped under working on my Honors thesis, my final Honors seminar presentation, my final papers, my mid-term next week, and my job. I'm going to be doing a lot of lurking for the next couple of weeks.

GilRuiz1: Possible sighting:

That's awesome.
 
2009-03-27 05:33:48 PM
In accordance with Poe's Law, here's these. Distribute as you like.


:) ;) :) ;)
 
2009-03-27 05:40:00 PM
colon_pow: uh uhhhh, you're the liar, liar.
i identified "weaknesses" you lying liar. stop lying.
good grief.


Translation: "I am rubber you are glue"

This is the theory of evolution (stolen shamelessly from abb3w, who has posted it twice in this thread). Which part, specifically, has a weakness? What is that weakness? What is your supporting evidence for that weakness?

There are mountains of supporting evidence for each point.
There are no moving goalposts here, because it's science. If you successfully contradict one of those points, you will win. "Contradict" in this case means prove wrong, not just state that it is wrong and ignore any research that shows it to be correct.

You will also become one of the most famous names in biology literally overnight. That'd be kind of fun, right?
 
2009-03-27 05:49:05 PM
colon_pow: did i win?

You won the prize...
 
2009-03-27 05:50:19 PM
it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

the fakes and forgeries are certainly among of the strengths of THE THEORY
 
2009-03-27 05:51:22 PM
NOT among the strengths.....

ftfm
 
2009-03-27 06:06:11 PM
colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

the fakes and forgeries are certainly among of the strengths of THE THEORY


So your weaknesses are the very thinks we've debunked multiple times in this very thread?
 
2009-03-27 06:09:30 PM
 
2009-03-27 06:10:37 PM
ninjakirby: colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

the fakes and forgeries are certainly among of the strengths of THE THEORY

So your weaknesses are the very thinks we've debunked multiple times in this very thread?


you've not debunked any of those thinks. you've tap danced around them.
 
2009-03-27 06:10:40 PM
I apologize for failing to close my HTML tag in my previous posting.


the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

To what "tricky questions" do you refer? You have thus far not posited any "questions" relating to the Cambrian explosion that were not answered and demonstrated to be predicated upon demonstrably false premises.
 
2009-03-27 06:13:36 PM
abb3w: Also used in pure math, although some pure math uses "proof" in the probabilistic sense. And in both pure logic and pure math, the proofs require initial statements of premises held axiomatically true... "on faith" as it were.

I know, I mentioned that in my previous post, so figured it would still be implied for him.

I can short hand "chief weapons," can't I? Without always having to mention fear and surprise? Well... fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency. Well...

BeefyT: I have been smoking banana peels however, when I try to have a conversation about solipsism it seems as if my thoughts only makes sense in my head.

Well then it all makes sense! :-)

entropic_existence: Maybe you should read some work on the topic by scientists and historians of science, much of which has been summarized for you already by others in this thread, rather then swallowing the BS of places like AIG whole?

The American International Group? We're still buying out their BS!

JBLars: Chick would have started flat-out ranting about winning souls or telling us how Catholics aren't Christian, or that Muslims worship some wacky moon god.

You mean atheists...?

;-)

STILL my favorite quote, and it's executed brilliantly. I hide well behind Poe's law with this one, though, because his gravity comment has to be trollery. HAS to! Because of not...! O_O

GilRuiz1: Possible sighting:

No, Kilted is paler than that, and doesn't have as lifelike a face.
 
2009-03-27 06:14:22 PM
The weaknesses in any theory are 2 things: 1) anything that does not explain the data 2) things shown not to be true.

you won't know about #2 until they are shown not to be true. #1 is the realm in which we are really discussing. For Evolution, we can say a weakness is that we cannot definitively say phylogenetically where birds fit within theropods. There are others along these lines.

If you notice, the "weaknesses" are severely detailed. There is no question that birds came from either theropods or archosaurs (though just about everyone says theropods).
 
2009-03-27 06:14:44 PM
colon_pow:
you've not debunked any of those thinks. you've tap danced around them.


You are again incorrect. Your assertion regarding species appearing "all at once" during the Cambrian explosion is demonstrably false, and your assertion that Nebraska Man, Neanderthal and Lucy were "fakes" is a lie. Nebraska Man was an erroneous classification, not a deliberate forgery. Neither Neanderthal Man nor the "Lucy" specimen of Australopithecus afarensis are "fakes".
 
2009-03-27 06:18:14 PM
colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. What, in your opinion, makes those fossils non-transitional, and what would qualify as a transitional fossil?

Darwin was correct in bemoaning the lack of them, because the majority of them have been discovered since he died.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

... such as?

the fakes and forgeries are certainly among of the strengths of THE THEORY

So, if I wrote "1+1=7" on a blackboard, would that be a weakness of Mathematics? Or would that just make me a liar?
 
2009-03-27 06:19:59 PM
colon_pow: ninjakirby: colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

the fakes and forgeries are certainly among of the strengths of THE THEORY

So your weaknesses are the very thinks we've debunked multiple times in this very thread?

you've not debunked any of those thinks. you've tap danced around them.


I debunked them with my Boobies after you burted your Ken Ham Whaargarbl.

So... you want to have a go at the theory. Let me help out. Read the following:
i150.photobucket.com

Which of the points do you have a problem with?
 
2009-03-27 06:20:48 PM
VonAether: So, if I wrote "1+1=7" on a blackboard, would that be a weakness of Mathematics? Or would that just make me a liar?

Bah! That's Intelligent Arithmetic! Teach the controversy!
 
2009-03-27 06:20:57 PM
Dimensio: I apologize for failing to close my HTML tag in my previous posting.


the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

To what "tricky questions" do you refer? You have thus far not posited any "questions" relating to the Cambrian explosion that were not answered and demonstrated to be predicated upon demonstrably false premises.


here i will demonstrably demonstrate some tricky questions regarding the cambrian explosion.

observe.

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),

"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists-for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick-as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." (Ibid., p. 344),

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (Ibid., p. 350),

"The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Ibid., p. 351),

"The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash." (Stephen Jay Gould, "An Asteroid to Die For," Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

"And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age." (I. Axelrod, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),

"Evolutionary biology's deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven't new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?" (Jeffrey S. Levinton, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),

"Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin." (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5).

suckonthatforawhile

i'll check back later.
go az wildcats !
 
2009-03-27 06:25:51 PM
colon_pow: Quote mining completely out of context, because by quoting honestly, I'll look like I don't know what I'm talking about...


i150.photobucket.com


Protip...The guy pictured above is not only a serial liar, he is doing a 10 year sentence for lying to the wrong people.
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report