Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Week)   "Why you should stop believing in evolution"   (theweek.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, evolution, World Science Festival, rottweilers, woodpeckers, trial and error, geological history  
•       •       •

5982 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Aug 2014 at 10:57 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



195 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-29 09:54:51 AM  
Mmmmm...wild strawberries....
 
2014-08-29 10:04:35 AM  
good article.

evolution is a fact, not a theory. it exists. we know it exists. we can observe it happening in the lab and in the wild. anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

the "theory" is natural selection as the prime mover behind evolution. but this theory has been tested and scrutinized for 150 years and still holds up.
 
2014-08-29 10:08:57 AM  
Yeah, but it doesn't explain why, if we came from apes, why are there still apes??????

/TakeThatDarwin
//Great article. If I had the time and interest, I would just tweet this link to every person who asks that stupid question.
 
2014-08-29 10:24:32 AM  
Reconciling is easy: Believe, if you want to, that God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders, along with the laws of physics, and probability, and everything else we can see and measure for ourselves.

I've been saying this for years.  Sure it's problematic if you want to believe that the book of Genesis is literally true, but if you believe the old testament is literally true, evolution is the LEAST of your worries.
 
2014-08-29 10:31:15 AM  
CTRL-O - Bible.txt
CTRL-F evolution

*Phrase not found*

Hah! Chessmate Darwinists.
 
2014-08-29 10:37:57 AM  
There is nothing that we are 100% unequivocally sure that it is true, so we still believe in evolution.  Much like I believe you folks are separate entities.
 
2014-08-29 10:48:16 AM  

nekom: Reconciling is easy: Believe, if you want to, that God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders, along with the laws of physics, and probability, and everything else we can see and measure for ourselves.

I've been saying this for years.  Sure it's problematic if you want to believe that the book of Genesis is literally true, but if you believe the old testament is literally true, evolution is the LEAST of your worries.


The OT is just the story of how the Jewish people came to understand God, their place in the universe, and the moral foundations of their society. To paraphrase from JRR Tolkien, the Bible is True, but it's not true.
 
2014-08-29 10:51:31 AM  
Another possibility to consider is that evolution is real, but only exists as fallout from man's original sin in the Garden of Eden. See, God created man (and woman) in his image, perfect. Without any need to "evolve" or "grow." But Eve, the woman, was tempted by Satan, and ate the forbidden apple. It's possible that this apple was, in fact, a sort of genetic time bomb, an early terrorist device. For really, who is Satan except for the earth's first terrorist? So Eve eats the apple, and then gets Adam to eat it, and now they've ingested this genetic material specially concocted by Satan that begins to evolve them.

But why, you ask, does Satan want them to evolve?

Simple: To move them away from perfection, away from God's own image.

Do you see? The "scientific" line is that evolution represents growth. But what if, in reality, it represents regression, retreat, a diminishment from our original perfection? Oh, would that not be a terrible irony. But think about it -- *if* Satan created that first apple as a genetic time bomb that would initiate evolution, wouldn't he have needed to have some significant scientific knowledge to start with? Wouldn't we have to, in fact, assume that he invented science, or at least genetics? And shouldn't that realization cause us to fundamentally question whether *all* science represents, in fact, a terrorist plot? I mean, think about it -- into what, exactly, are we evolving? What's the end game? What if we evolve into some terrible disease that destroys us all? What if we evolve into demons? What if we evolve into anti-matter that destroys the entire universe? Can anyone say for sure, with absolute, 100 percent certainty, that none of these might happen?

Of course not. No one can. And so what we must accept in reality is that evolution, for us, represents a scenario much like being strapped to a speeding locomotive laden with dynamite that's hurtling without brakes toward a collapsed bridge. With each passing moment -- each year, each month, each day, each minute, each  second -- we as a species evolve further and further away from our previous perfection and toward some potentially horrific fate devised by the most evil mind imaginable, a mind that makes ISIS and Al Queda look like rank amateurs. Can you hear it, our steady and relentless "evolution"? Listen:  tick tick tick tick tick tick.

Yes, evolution is real. We can grant that, we can accept that. It would be foolish, in fact, to not do so, because that would be ignoring the threat. The question now must become -- how do we stop it? Drone strikes? Prayer? Lower taxes? All possibilities, for sure, but all somehow lacking as well.

But perhaps...perhaps the answer lies itself within in the problem. Perhaps Satan erred when he unleashed genetics and evolution upon the world. Because while we are evolving, there are creatures on this earth who do not. Crocodiles, for example. Look at them; they don't evolve. They've stayed the same for thousands of years. Ferns, too. They look the same now as they always did, they haven't evolved. Maybe they're resistant to Satan's poison, we don't know. But perhaps we can concoct some sort of essence of crocodile and fern, add to it any other living things that seem evolution resistant, and distill whatever element in their beings gives them this resistance into a medicine that we can use. I doubt we can reverse the negative effects we've already suffered, but maybe ... just maybe ... we can stop that speeding locomotive before it takes its final plunge.
 
2014-08-29 10:55:15 AM  
Yeah?  You talk about evolution, we'd all like to see the proof(an)

/so on, so forth
 
2014-08-29 10:56:43 AM  
An evolution article on Fark.  Well, it's been a while since I've seen one of these.  Do we still have a collection of crazy YECists?

EvilEgg: There is nothing that we are 100% unequivocally sure that it is true, so we still believe in evolution.  Much like I believe you folks are separate entities.


Philosophical solipsism aside, as a matter of practically there are some things that we can accept as facts once we accept that the world around us exists.  Generally I would reserve the term "believe" for matters that can't be so clearly demonstrated as the evidence of evolution.  We might as well call it a "fact" if we're going to use that term for anything.
 
2014-08-29 11:00:24 AM  
because you're a farking idiot?
 
2014-08-29 11:00:39 AM  
SphericalTime:
Philosophical solipsism aside, as a matter of practically there are some things that we can accept as facts once we accept that the world around us exists.  Generally I would reserve the term "believe" for matters that can't be so clearly demonstrated as the evidence of evolution.  We might as well call it a "fact" if we're going to use that term for anything.

I think a better way to describe evolution is that it's the current scientific consensus, and overwhelmingly so.  It's as close to a solid fact as just about anything else in science is, but in the unlikely event that it turns out to be proven false through experimentation and peer reviewed research, that consensus will change.
 
2014-08-29 11:04:12 AM  

FlashHarry: good article.

evolution is a fact, not a theory. it exists. we know it exists. we can observe it happening in the lab and in the wild. anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

the "theory" is natural selection as the prime mover behind evolution. but this theory has been tested and scrutinized for 150 years and still holds up.


I came here to say this.
 
2014-08-29 11:04:50 AM  
Nice bait for the anti-science crowd.

I wouldn't have clicked if it weren't for the comments here.
 
2014-08-29 11:05:34 AM  
You are related to every king and criminal who ever lived, to Gandhi and Paris Hilton and Carrot Top.


F*ck you article writer.
 
2014-08-29 11:06:31 AM  

Pocket Ninja: But Eve, the woman, was tempted by Satan


If she was perfect she could not have been tempted.
 
2014-08-29 11:08:01 AM  

FlashHarry: evolution is a fact, not a theory. it exists. we know it exists. we can observe it happening in the lab


I'm not sure that it can actually be observed happening in a lab.
But yes, it is what it is.
 
2014-08-29 11:08:27 AM  

nekom: It's as close to a solid fact as just about anything else in science is


i'd say it's a bit different as it's just the name for a result of a process. you can't disprove evolution, because you'd need to actually disprove steps along the process
 
2014-08-29 11:10:47 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: nekom: Reconciling is easy: Believe, if you want to, that God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders, along with the laws of physics, and probability, and everything else we can see and measure for ourselves.

I've been saying this for years.  Sure it's problematic if you want to believe that the book of Genesis is literally true, but if you believe the old testament is literally true, evolution is the LEAST of your worries.

The OT is just the story of how the Jewish people came to understand God, their place in the universe, and the moral foundations of their society. To paraphrase from JRR Tolkien, the Bible is True, but it's not true.


I just read an interesting piece on how, in Judaism, the most important point isn't the fall from the Garden of Eden, but Genesis 17, in which God promises that the Jews will be his chosen people for all time.  For Jews, Genesis 1 and 2 are not really central to their beliefs, just a creation myth that isn't meant to be literal.  I wish I could locate it, I'd link to it here.
 
2014-08-29 11:11:06 AM  

neversubmit: Pocket Ninja: But Eve, the woman, was tempted by Satan

If she was perfect she could not have been tempted.


Who are you carrying all those bricks for anyway? God? Is that it? God? Well, I tell ya, let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift and then what does He do? I swear, for His own amusement, His own private cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is He doin'? He's laughin' His sick, farkin' ass off. He's a tight-ass. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never! ... Why not?
 
2014-08-29 11:11:56 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Another possibility to consider is that evolution is real, but only exists as fallout from man's original sin in the Garden of Eden.


Dude, all you need is track suits and bunk beds and you've got yourself a cult.
 
2014-08-29 11:12:24 AM  

EvilEgg: There is nothing that we are 100% unequivocally sure that it is true, so we still believe in evolution.  Much like I believe you folks are separate entities.


You mean rather than just one modmin trolling you for $5 a month?
 
2014-08-29 11:13:20 AM  
Hooray semantics!

// "believe in evolution" = "believe that an evolutionary process (as described by Darwin, SJ Gould, and many, many others in between and since) is responsible for the biodiversity here"
// I "believe" in the Pythagorean Theory in much the same manner - i.e. I believe that every time I add the sum of squares of the lengths of the non-hypotenuse sides of a right triangle, that the result will equal the square of the length of the hypotenuse (1/1/sqrt(2), 3/4/5, 5/12/13, etc)
// the fact exists independent of my belief, that belief is really only important/relevant to me, and it's pretty much a nonsensical claim otherwise (because the fact exists independent of my belief in it)
 
2014-08-29 11:13:43 AM  

FlashHarry: evolution is a fact, not a theory.


No.  It isn't a fact.  It is a theory that explains a set of facts.  Facts are discrete data points.  So facts are specific biological specimens with their attending characteristics and ages.  Evolution is the theory that explains how those facts are connected.  A fact cannot change.  A theory can, as new facts are discovered that either refine it or prove parts of it problematic.  The theory of evolution has developed quite a bit over time and would probably have Darwin more than a bit befuddled if you could introduce him to it in the present day - just the simple existence of DNA would pole-axe the poor man.  While evolution is incredibly robust, we could find new information that might radically change our understanding on biological diversity, and evolution might either morph to the extent of being well-nigh incomprehensible oer be shown to be well-intentionedly wrong - but Platypus sample #2718D71SR will always be the same.
 
2014-08-29 11:14:11 AM  

foo monkey: Pocket Ninja: Another possibility to consider is that evolution is real, but only exists as fallout from man's original sin in the Garden of Eden.

Dude, all you need is track suits and bunk beds and you've got yourself a cult.


Don't forget the shoes. Gotta have new kicks or the spaceship won't come.
 
2014-08-29 11:14:26 AM  
You don't "believe" in evolution because that term implies that there could be some doubt.  Your devotion to Evolutionism must be unquestioning and absolute.  In science, there is no room for doubt. Besides, Evolutionism is supported by "mountains of data."  And hairy arm pits.  Farmers can breed really small strawberries and dog breeders can make all kinds of different dogs.  That proves that you are a biological accident that evolved from a mud puddle without any intelligent design.
 
2014-08-29 11:15:35 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: FlashHarry: evolution is a fact, not a theory. it exists. we know it exists. we can observe it happening in the lab

I'm not sure that it can actually be observed happening in a lab.
But yes, it is what it is.


Oh yes it can. So many fruit flies *shudders*.
 
2014-08-29 11:17:08 AM  
There is always some degree of doubt. I am only slightly more sure that evolution is true than I am that the sun will rise tomorrow.
 
2014-08-29 11:17:17 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: FlashHarry: evolution is a fact, not a theory. it exists. we know it exists. we can observe it happening in the lab

I'm not sure that it can actually be observed happening in a lab.
But yes, it is what it is.


Three words: Antibiotic resistant bacteria.
 
2014-08-29 11:17:22 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: I'm not sure that it can actually be observed happening in a lab.
But yes, it is what it is.


Then you simply haven't read about the experiments where it literally happened in a lab.
 
2014-08-29 11:18:21 AM  

nekom: SphericalTime:
Philosophical solipsism aside, as a matter of practically there are some things that we can accept as facts once we accept that the world around us exists.  Generally I would reserve the term "believe" for matters that can't be so clearly demonstrated as the evidence of evolution.  We might as well call it a "fact" if we're going to use that term for anything.

I think a better way to describe evolution is that it's the current scientific consensus, and overwhelmingly so.  It's as close to a solid fact as just about anything else in science is, but in the unlikely event that it turns out to be proven false through experimentation and peer reviewed research, that consensus will change.


Generally speaking, with as much evidence as evolution has, it won't be proven incorrect, just inexact.  The Theory may be refined to account for minor inconsistencies, but it almost certainly won't go away.
 
2014-08-29 11:18:37 AM  
If you haven't done the field work, analyzed the data, etc. then at best your "belief" in evolution is blind trust in those who purport to have done so.  And saying you're willing to believe differently if different data and better analysis come to light is stupid too- all you're saying is that you're willing to believe some other set of scientists.  You might as well place your trust in whichever ones have more twitter followers, or better haircuts.  And worse, you're being a hypocrite when you criticize others who have religious believes about the origins of the Universe.

I sit on the "science" side of the fence, but I don't have a lot of patience with people who place as much blind faith in it as fundies place in whatever scripture their particular religion tells them to believe.

(I have even LESS patience with fundies who can't even be bothered to read the scriptures their particular religion tells them to believe, instead relying on a cadre of sociopaths in robes to translate and interpret the scripture for them and believing that the sociopaths are doing so in a manner that promotes the congregations' best interests and not their own.)
 
2014-08-29 11:18:47 AM  
That is a very good article. It has always annoyed me that people say they "believe" in evolution. That's like saying I "believe" in gravity. It's simply not something you can deny. It's a fact you either know or do not know. It's not that I don't "believe" in the math of particle physics, I just don't know it.

SkinnyHead: That proves that you are a biological accident that evolved from a mud puddle without any intelligent design.


...said the mud puddle.
 
2014-08-29 11:18:57 AM  

SkinnyHead: blah blah blaaaah blah


God, you're so farking boring these days.  Take notes from Pocket Ninja - he puts in effort and originality.
 
2014-08-29 11:20:04 AM  

DemonEater: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: I'm not sure that it can actually be observed happening in a lab.
But yes, it is what it is.

Then you simply haven't read about the experiments where it literally happened in a lab.


One of my happier Twitter moments (shut up) was when I sent that link to @TakeThatDarwin.

// I think he tweeted it out 44,000 times that day
// the happiest was my short convo with Lucky Yates (aka "Dr" Algernop Krieger, of Braz- istol... County... Rhode Island) /CSB
 
2014-08-29 11:22:21 AM  

SkinnyHead: You don't "believe" in evolution because that term implies that there could be some doubt.  Your devotion to Evolutionism must be unquestioning and absolute.  In science, there is no room for doubt. Besides, Evolutionism is supported by "mountains of data."  And hairy arm pits.  Farmers can breed really small strawberries and dog breeders can make all kinds of different dogs.  That proves that you are a biological accident that evolved from a mud puddle without any intelligent design.


FTFA: Evolution is nothing more than a fairly simple way of understanding what is unquestionably happening. You don't believe in it - you either understand it or you don't. But pretending evolution is a matter of faith can be a clever way to hijack the conversation, and pit it in a false duality against religion.
 
2014-08-29 11:23:04 AM  

tillerman35: If you haven't done the field work, analyzed the data, etc. then at best your "belief" in evolution is blind trust in those who purport to have done so.  And saying you're willing to believe differently if different data and better analysis come to light is stupid too- all you're saying is that you're willing to believe some other set of scientists.  You might as well place your trust in whichever ones have more twitter followers, or better haircuts.  And worse, you're being a hypocrite when you criticize others who have religious believes about the origins of the Universe.

I sit on the "science" side of the fence, but I don't have a lot of patience with people who place as much blind faith in it as fundies place in whatever scripture their particular religion tells them to believe.

(I have even LESS patience with fundies who can't even be bothered to read the scriptures their particular religion tells them to believe, instead relying on a cadre of sociopaths in robes to translate and interpret the scripture for them and believing that the sociopaths are doing so in a manner that promotes the congregations' best interests and not their own.)


Sure its ultimately an act of faith too, but the scientists do have a much more solid record of making miracles happen.
 
2014-08-29 11:25:34 AM  

SkinnyHead: You don't "believe" in evolution because that term implies that there could be some doubt.  Your devotion to Evolutionism must be unquestioning and absolute.  In science, there is no room for doubt. Besides, Evolutionism is supported by "mountains of data."  And hairy arm pits.  Farmers can breed really small strawberries and dog breeders can make all kinds of different dogs.  That proves that you are a biological accident that evolved from a mud puddle without any intelligent design.


It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.
 
2014-08-29 11:29:34 AM  

TonnageVT: Yeah, but it doesn't explain why, if we came from apes, why are there still apes??????

/TakeThatDarwin
//Great article. If I had the time and interest, I would just tweet this link to every person who asks that stupid question.


I expect you're engaging in snark, but as this is a common criticism of human evolution let me flesh that out.

Humans did not descend from apes.  Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor species with apes evolving to adapt to their forest environment and humans evolving to adapt to a savannah. Apes have developed longer arms and upper body strength while humans have developed longer legs and  changed the angle of the pelvis and layout of the feet to allow them to engage in foot pursuit of game.
 
2014-08-29 11:30:57 AM  
Pocket Ninja:

[Concentrated brilliance]

But perhaps...perhaps the answer lies itself within in the problem. Perhaps Satan erred when he unleashed genetics and evolution upon the world. Because while we are evolving, there are creatures on this earth who do not. Crocodiles, for example. Look at them; they don't evolve. They've stayed the same for thousands of years. Ferns, too. They look the same now as they always did, they haven't evolved. Maybe they're resistant to Satan's poison, we don't know. But perhaps we can concoct some sort of essence of crocodile and fern, add to it any other living things that seem evolution resistant, and distill whatever element in their beings gives them this resistance into a medicine that we can use. I doubt we can reverse the negative effects we've already suffered, but maybe ... just maybe ... we can stop that speeding locomotive before it takes its final plunge.


That makes a lot of sense. We should start farm-raising coelacanths for food. The ultimate answer to the human dilemma could be on your dinner plate.
 
2014-08-29 11:33:17 AM  

SkinnyHead: In science, there is no room for doubt.


Dude, in science the main driving force is doubt if you are doing it right!  That is why you repeat and retest often.

I know, I know,  nevermind...
 
2014-08-29 11:36:58 AM  
baby-recipes.com
 
2014-08-29 11:38:47 AM  

SphericalTime: An evolution article on Fark.  Well, it's been a while since I've seen one of these.  Do we still have a collection of crazy YECists?

EvilEgg: There is nothing that we are 100% unequivocally sure that it is true, so we still believe in evolution.  Much like I believe you folks are separate entities.

Philosophical solipsism aside, as a matter of practically there are some things that we can accept as facts once we accept that the world around us exists.  Generally I would reserve the term "believe" for matters that can't be so clearly demonstrated as the evidence of evolution.  We might as well call it a "fact" if we're going to use that term for anything.


I would also say that the word "believe" should be used for the kinds of things that have become evident to the individual over a long and complex process of examination. That by no means assumes the process did not contain errors.

Most of the time, the reasons for personal "beliefs" are very difficult for the average person to explain to others. This indicates the potential for errors in the belief.

I find it very important to come to mutual understandings of definition for these terms. Faith, belief, trust, fact and theory requires people agree to what they are before a truly meaningful conversation can take place.

I also find solipsism arguments to be exceptionally lame. "But we can never know for sure", is totally self defeating. They the faux-intellectual equivalent of "well that's just your opinion, man".
 
2014-08-29 11:41:00 AM  

MrBallou: FTFA: Evolution is nothing more than a fairly simple way of understanding what is unquestionably happening. You don't believe in it - you either understand it or you don't. But pretending evolution is a matter of faith can be a clever way to hijack the conversation, and pit it in a false duality against religion.


The author first defines "evolution" as something that is "unquestionably happening," as in strawberries evolving to be different sizes or dogs evolving into different dog breeds.  He then uses that as a springboard to claim that Evolutionism (the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor by natural processes without intelligent design) is equally unquestionable.  That's where he makes his leap of faith.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2014-08-29 11:41:09 AM  
While Charles Darwin was the first to characterize this group of bird species, the oft-heard phrase "Darwin's finches" was first coined by Percy Lowe in 1936 and later popularized by David Lack in 1947 with his treatise titled Darwin's Finches.3 One of the key differences between the various species of Darwin's finches is the size and shape of their beaks that are adapted to different food sources. Interestingly, a number of these species are known to interbreed with each other naturally, although extensive testing of inter-fertility has not been done.4

What underlies this variation in finch beaks? In studies attempting to determine the molecular basis for beak variability in finches, researchers have found that very similar developmental genetic pathways among species can produce markedly different beak shapes.5 So if the genes are essentially the same, then what seems to be the major source of variation? In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. The first were short sections of non-coding DNA sequence that varied in the number of copies-repeated units-called copy number variants or CNVs. In humans, differences in CNVs form the basis for studying forensics and paternity testing. The second factor studied was epigenetically-based, using an analysis of DNA methylation patterns around the genome.

From these analyses, the researchers found that epigenetics correlated well with increased diversity among species while CNVs, based on actual DNA sequences, did not. In addition, they also undertook a more focused study of the epigenetic profiles of specific genes involved in the morphogenesis of beak shape, immune-system responses, and coloring of the birds. Once again, the epigenetic profiles of the different bird species for all of these gene groups were different while the DNA sequences were nearly identical. Clearly, epigenetics is emerging as an important theme in speciation. It's becoming evident that both genetic variability and epigenetic mechanisms are built into the genome as adaptive systems of variation that allow for robust speciation to occur within the boundaries of created kinds. However, these processes never allow for amoeba-to-man vertical evolution.

Once again, the predictions based on the Bible are aligning well with real experimental science while the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis, as evolutionists like to call it, is failing the test. In addition, the amazing cellular machinery that reads, regulates, replicates, and modifies epigenetic states in the genome is so incredibly sophisticated and complex that it can only be attributed to the work of an Omnipotent Creator.

http://www.icr.org/article/8338/

i132.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-29 11:45:40 AM  

"increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans. "



That may me chortle.
 
2014-08-29 11:46:10 AM  
He choses strawberries as an example of man's selective breeding, but didn't do the research. That red giant you enjoy is the product of two South American breeds geologically separate, brought together in a French greenhouse by spycraft and accident, then it became a bird-spread invasive species in North America.
 
2014-08-29 11:47:09 AM  
Evolution, like gravitation, or the cube square law, doesn't require belief.  Belief isn't relevant to anything except things like religion, magic, or the honesty of a politician.  ie: things that only exist in imagination.  The ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter ≈ 3.141595265 no matter how hard you pray, whatever ritual you perform, or law you try to enact.

/I'm looking at you Indiana...(and laughing)
 
2014-08-29 11:49:02 AM  

Gary-L: [baby-recipes.com image 850x478]

Not sure what that thing is, but it looks like it was designed to be the perfect size and shape to jam up a ya-ya.
 
2014-08-29 11:49:09 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Words


I want to believe you put this stuff together ahead of time, crafted over a course of hours, and have it all ready to go in the right thread.

The alternative terrifies me.
 
Displayed 50 of 195 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report