Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sebster wrote:But I still believe in it, the trick to being a Christian and a scientist is to believe that science just explains god's work.
Absolutely. Science looks to discover what is happening, religion looks to explain why. They're fundamentally incompatible, and efforts to use one to explain the other have generally made each of poorer off.
I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
lord commissar klimino wrote:contradiction. if nature wanted offspring,it would stop mutations that would make less offspring. yet it allows them to happen.
Nature doesn't want anything, because nature isn't a conscious thing. It doesn't 'allow' anything to happen, because it is not a conscious thing.
Mutations happen because in the process of copying cells, mistakes are made. Just like if you copied out this sentence, you might mistype a word. Most of the time the result is gibberish. Over a sufficiently long time a whole lot of gibberish collects in the text, to the point where some of that gibberish actually becomes new words, with new meanings. If those words give the creature abilities that help it survive, it is more likely to breed, passing on that new information.
That's it. That's evolution. You may think 'that sounds pretty whacky' but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the ideas of evolution have been studied and tested for more than a century, and they've not only stood up, they've been used to predict things that we later verified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:Mutations that create less survivable offspring cause the offspring to not survive and thus don't pass on the genes.
That is exactly what natural selection is and it works just fine until humans start being sentimental and save the pandas.
Sort of. It's a mistake to conclude natural selection decides what should and shouldn't survive. Simple fact is pandas ought to survive if we decide they're worth saving. Just like something that's very well adapted to life and has a rapidly growing population isn't more deserving of life, if we decide they're doing too much damage then we should get rid of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
Some opinions are more informed than others. People who study this stuff for a living are more informed than you, and more informed than me. We should be smart enough, and humble enough, to accept their greater knowledge.
You know this is true. If you didn't believe it, you would be just as likely to listen some guy living in a caravan about the possible skin cancer on your arm as you would be to see a dermatologist. But deep down you know education has value.
You just choose to ignore when it comes to evolution and the big bang, because you have the luxury of there being no direct consequences for being completely wrong.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
First up, evolution doesn't predict more perfect species. It states the species will grow increasingly capable of producing offspring. Given we just ticked over 7 billion people, it seems to be working very well.
Everything else you've written is basically just you lacking basic scientific knowledge.
Homosexuality, and infertility, are likely not the product of genetics. More likely they're the product of environmental factors, such as hormones introduced the womb, and the like.
Evolution has a minimal effect on cancer, because most cancers begin to afflict people once they've passed the child rearing age.
We are not more vulnerable to disease. Diseases have ripped through humanity, and reduced it to a fraction of it's present population, that we now ignore because of the immunities we've built up. Look at what happened when the Europeans arrived in the Americas, and diseases they brought with them ravaged the native populations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:not to that simpleness or crudeness,but still the basic principle of how you have acted.
You need to really, really consider the idea that you don't know much about these subjects, and deciding an entire field of learning is entirely wrong when you don't understand it properly is, basically, an idiotic thing to do.
Now, I figure you're probably going to go away now, hurt and offended that people have been mean to you, and use that ignorance to avoid questioning anything you've claimed in this thread. Please don't do that. Instead, please consider the idea that you really need to read a lot more about these subjects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/11/16 07:14:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
lord commissar klimino wrote:nope,not a fan of evolution either. did you know fossils could easilt not be that old? the found human made wire fossilized in the ocean that couldn't be older than a thousand years old yet at 1st they thought it was a billion year old dino or some other thing. until they broke it open.
Have you got some sort of source for this that we can actually read? Because I'm not about to reject some of the fundamental ideas of modern science based on a confused recount of some claim online. I mean dinosaurs aren't a billion years old for a start so it doesn't strike me as a well informed post.
This is not fossilization, It is accreation. Totally different process that does not take millions of years, it can happen in a handfull of years in a reactive environment like the salty ocean. Get your science correct before you publish nonsense.
Comment: Charlie, the science is correct. For example, if you look up dictionary.com for the definition of a fossil you will read: “any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc.” In other words, fossils can take many forms, and the encased fencing wire is an example of one of those forms. It is a trace of a living thing because the fencing wire was obviously made by a living agent. I’m glad you appreciate the point of the illustration, which is that the processes involved in fossilization do not take millions of years. We want to break the incorrect perception that most people have that fossils prove long ages.
the highlighted part made me hurt myself laughing. So the metal in my computer was alive because it was made by a 'living agent'?
2) Malf on Counter Earth would be like Santa, just with socks. and year round.
3) the worst part would be to find out WE are the evil ones. It could be My little Pony's awesome over there!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/16 08:44:55
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
That's a good point...Its a fact that conventional religious thinking and conventional scientific thinking are often opposed...But I think there will eventually or at least possibly be a point where the two can coexist...
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/16 08:44:45
I like how the fact that humans are not perfect in every way somehow disproves evolution. Evolution has never ever claimed to solve all problems, or give species what they 'want'. Which is a bizarre way of looking at it, animals and nature don't 'want' anything.
Random mutation means that natural selection only gets to work on those mutations offered. You will get a 'fitter' organism as the generations pass, and it will be fit enough to survive. But there's nothing at all to say that evolution leads to the best case solution at all times. I have to say that klimino is coming out with many comments that are typical to people who have no real education in evolution and only understand what twisted things they have been told in a deeply religious upbringing, by people who are equally clueless about that which they teach. The only way to address this is for him to have a genuinely open mind and question what he's been taught, and to start his biology education right at the beginning. Bombardment with internet links won't help.
Also I can''t be bothered to help people who talk about how the human race is getting worse because we are "less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc."
I don't want to invoke Godwins law casually because I'm not saying this to be rude but as a point of fact, but saying that the human race is 'getting worse' because of the disabled people and homosexuals does in fact make you sound like a nazi, and that's not silly name calling, that is literally how your opinion reads.
----------------
Anyway, back to my previous point. Given the twists and turns in evolutionary history of humanity, there are all kinds of things which are far from perfect in nature. Take the human eye, that thing that creationists time and again claim is proof of intelligent design; it only has one area which can see particularly high levels of detail (macula lutea), you have a blind spot where the optic nerve leads away from the retina, you have fairly widespread colour blindness, many humans have their eyes start to fail in childhood needing glasses.
Explain to me why if we are "intelligently designed" why the eye and other things are A) designed in such a flawed manner and B) not designed to last.
The way I like to think of it is Evoloution plays the nirmbers for any catastrophe that could happen. Through Sexual reproduction and not Asexual we can pick up mutations that often help us.
Another point is why would be become perfectly adapted to our environment when the earth can shift Environment fast, we are a young race still.
And earths only been around for 1/3 of the Universes existence.
I like to flip this around now, defend religion.
We've already explained outside and given countless reasons that disprove you and prove Evoloution and the Big Bang. Even other religions state that a flash of light created everything, so the Big Bang.
Religion and Science are closely interlinked as Religion was the old science.
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
That's a good point...Its a fact that conventional religious thinking and conventional scientific thinking are often opposed...But I think there will eventually or at least possibly be a point where the two can coexist...
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Intelligent Design isn't conventional religious thinking. The Pope accepts the scientific theory of evolution and the age of the Earth. He accepts the Genesis creation story as a metaphor. Same for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
ID and young earth creation is a pretty far out religious belief.
alarmingrick wrote:the highlighted part made me hurt myself laughing. So the metal in my computer was alive because it was made by a 'living agent'?
I'm just puzzled about how someone claiming to run a website carrying scientific information can counter someone's scientific explanation with a dictionary.com definition. I mean seriously, how did we come to this?
I think they can co-exist just fine, right now, as long as everyone understands where one stops and the other begins.
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Unforunately it wasn't. Basically, fundamentalist Christianity, starting in the 1920s, had a big problem with evolution, but lost the fight to have it taught in schools. They then set about creating their own 'scientific' explanation that ran counter to evolution. In one sense there's nothing wrong with that, coming up with an alternative theory and then running tests to prove their theory better explains the natural world is what science is all about.
Unfortunately, they didn't try to do that. Instead they just set about making claims about the failings of evolution, many of which were wrong or had nothing to do with science, while almost the claims with any scientific validity have since been disproven. At no point did they attempt to build a complete definition for their theory, or to test any part of it.
It was, basically, a politically motivated effort to control what is taught in schools. In continuing this process for more than 50 years, they've produced a vision of the world that denies direct evidence of how it works (poor science) and reduced themselves to a very shallow reading of the bible (bad religion).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/16 13:58:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
lord commissar klimino wrote:ah...the joys of people not budging and making jests at you just cause they think there right and have the numbers.
we have more steps back today then forward. by now we would be a better species,yet were totally worse. less immune to disease, more deformed kids, gays, infertileness, cancer, etc,etc,etc.
you guys just keep not proving anything,and ive done similar.
Less immune to disease? If that's the case then it's probably because of all yhe antibiotics we force down our throats for the slightest ailment.
More deformed kids? Proof please or shut up....
Infertility? (not infertileness..) that's always been around, thanks to the advances in science, it's not much of a problem these days..
Cancer? Again, that has most likely always been around. It's only thanks too Science that we can recognise and try to fight the symptoms..
Gays? you are aware that a good deal of Roman aristocracy were gay, right? That's right..they only slept with women when they felt the need to breed..Ergo, it's not a new phenomenon. It's a sexual practise dating back almost 2000 years.
Rented Tritium wrote:I just found this thread, are we not talking about counter-earth anymore? I was all ready to drop my knowledge of lagrangian points, too. Sad.
Feel free to attempt to steer the thread back, it sounds somewhat interesting.
Counter-Earth has been categorically disproved, there's only a small region in which it could lie for it to be obscured by the sun at all times and our satellites and probes are capable of observing this region. There's really nothing to discuss.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/16 14:50:13
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Didn't Terry Pratchett come up with a similar theory? He called it the Counter Weight Continent iirc..
No, the 'counter weight continent' was a continent on one hemicircle of the discworld that was small, but weighed exactly the same as the rest of the continents on the other hemicircle (due to it being almost entirely comprised of gold). Thus providing balance and preventing the discworld from tipping over...
As for the theory involving counter worlds and lagrange points, we can see both the lagrange points and so far we've come up with diddly-squat...
And that is why you hear people yelling FOR THE EMPEROR rather than FOR LOGICAL AND QUANTIFIABLE BASED DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE MAJORITY!
Phototoxin wrote:Kids go in , they waste tonnes of money on marnus calgar and his landraider, the slaneshi-like GW revel at this lust and short term profit margin pleasure. Meanwhile father time and cunning lord tzeentch whisper 'our games are better AND cheaper' and then players leave for mantic and warmahordes.
daveNYC wrote:The Craftworld guys, who are such stick-in-the-muds that they manage to make the Ultramarines look like an Ibiza nightclub that spiked its Red Bull with LSD.
After skimming through this thread, my only thought is "At least not all of the ignorance is coming from Americans".
@corpses:
The discussion about there only being a single electron (on whatever page that was) is actually somewhat valid. The underlying principle is that an electron moving forwards through time is mathematically identical to a positron moving backwards through time. There's no way (according to current theory) to tell the difference.
So, rather than thinking of an electron and positron coming together to annihilate each other and give off a photon, you can think of an electron traveling along, then suddenly becoming anti-matter and moving the other direction through time, giving off a photon as it does so. So, if there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter (this would mean that there's a lot of anti-matter out there we haven't seen), all electrons could actually be a single electron playing with itself as it bounces back and forth through time.
Grakmar wrote:After skimming through this thread, my only thought is "At least not all of the ignorance is coming from Americans".
@corpses:
The discussion about there only being a single electron (on whatever page that was) is actually somewhat valid. The underlying principle is that an electron moving forwards through time is mathematically identical to a positron moving backwards through time. There's no way (according to current theory) to tell the difference.
So, rather than thinking of an electron and positron coming together to annihilate each other and give off a photon, you can think of an electron traveling along, then suddenly becoming anti-matter and moving the other direction through time, giving off a photon as it does so. So, if there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter (this would mean that there's a lot of anti-matter out there we haven't seen), all electrons could actually be a single electron playing with itself as it bounces back and forth through time.
That is valid, however cooper pairs still present an issue for the one electron idea.
Aerethan wrote:Anyway, the "theory" was originated by one John Norman in a series of books that referred to the planet as "Gor" and that it had it's own culture and alien overlords.
sebster wrote:I'm just trying to clarify...is that a statement of affirmation or contradiction? No matter how many times I read it I can't tell which...
I was agreeing with him. You use science to see how the world works. From there, if you want, you can use religion to explain the why.
But you shouldn't ever put the two together. You shouldn't use science to go looking for God, because you'll produce bad science and bad religion. And you shouldn't use religion to justify or criticise scientific ideas, because once again you'll just produce bad science and bad religion.
That's a good point...Its a fact that conventional religious thinking and conventional scientific thinking are often opposed...But I think there will eventually or at least possibly be a point where the two can coexist...
The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Intelligent Design isn't conventional religious thinking. The Pope accepts the scientific theory of evolution and the age of the Earth. He accepts the Genesis creation story as a metaphor. Same for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
ID and young earth creation is a pretty far out religious belief.
Also, ID has failed as a scientific proof.
I know, I was saying that ID was unconventional thinking...
sebster wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:The theory of Intelligent design is a good indicator of this it seems essentially to be an attempt to bridge the two...at least from what I know of it...
Unforunately it wasn't. Basically, fundamentalist Christianity, starting in the 1920s, had a big problem with evolution, but lost the fight to have it taught in schools. They then set about creating their own 'scientific' explanation that ran counter to evolution. In one sense there's nothing wrong with that, coming up with an alternative theory and then running tests to prove their theory better explains the natural world is what science is all about.
Unfortunately, they didn't try to do that. Instead they just set about making claims about the failings of evolution, many of which were wrong or had nothing to do with science, while almost the claims with any scientific validity have since been disproven. At no point did they attempt to build a complete definition for their theory, or to test any part of it.
It was, basically, a politically motivated effort to control what is taught in schools. In continuing this process for more than 50 years, they've produced a vision of the world that denies direct evidence of how it works (poor science) and reduced themselves to a very shallow reading of the bible (bad religion).
I'm pretty sure the theory had origins before that but either way you're right about the fundamentalist Christian movement...
On second reading I've found that the theory's definition tries to disprove natural selection which has a lot of proof behind it...
honestly, I find it easier to believe that if hypothetically the universe was created then the creator must have also created evolution and natural selection...hence what I was saying about the two intersecting...
I hope that makes sense because it does to me...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/16 18:43:43
Rented Tritium wrote:I just found this thread, are we not talking about counter-earth anymore? I was all ready to drop my knowledge of lagrangian points, too. Sad.
Feel free to attempt to steer the thread back, it sounds somewhat interesting.
There was a movie based on the counter earth theory back in the 70's. It was called Doppleganger.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Counter-Earth has been categorically disproved, there's only a small region in which it could lie for it to be obscured by the sun at all times and our satellites and probes are capable of observing this region. There's really nothing to discuss.
It's one of things that works rather nicely as a little thought experiment. I mean, the idea of a second Earth always exactly being blocked from our vision by the sun is a pretty cool idea. But, of course, someone somewhere has to miss the point, take it seriously and ruin the fun, because instead of getting to think 'wouldn't that be neat' we all have to spend our time explaining why it isn't actually possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:I'm pretty sure the theory had origins before that but either way you're right about the fundamentalist Christian movement...
Sure, it had origins much sooner than that, as people looked to reconcile their faith in God with the growing evidence behind evolution. I mean, Charles Darwin had a set of beliefs that you could describe as a kind of
As we discovered more though, it seems like they broke into two camps, one set that accepted the evidence of evolution and was fine with the watchmaker analogy, and a second group that went on to argue for intelligent design. It's that second lot that people have a disagreement with.
honestly, I find it easier to believe that if hypothetically the universe was created then the creator must have also created evolution and natural selection...hence what I was saying about the two intersecting...
I hope that makes sense because it does to me...
Yeah, that's the watchmaker analogy, the idea that God put all the pieces in place then set it off, and it's been chugging away according to the system he put in place all those millenia ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/17 02:16:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: But, of course, someone somewhere has to miss the point, take it seriously and ruin the fun, because instead of getting to think 'wouldn't that be neat' we all have to spend our time explaining why it isn't actually possible.
I'd like you to meet my friend, internet.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
sebster wrote:But, of course, someone somewhere has to miss the point, take it seriously and ruin the fun, because instead of getting to think 'wouldn't that be neat' we all have to spend our time explaining why it isn't actually possible.
My impression from the OP was that it was a serious suggestion.
Howard A Treesong wrote:My impression from the OP was that it was a serious suggestion.
Yeah, the OP missed the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote:I'd like you to meet my friend, internet.
There needs to be some kind of theory that the loudest, least informed person is the most likely to dominate a discussion, because of the amount of time needed to explain to that person why their claims are crazy. Therefore, the more people a conversation is open to, the greater the chance of that conversation being dominated by a crazy person. Therefore, the internet...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/17 02:43:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
i was going to give a long post buuuuut....then i saw i had like,20 things id have to read in depth and pick apart. not worth it,ever.
so i tried to think of something simpler,and then remembered how i shouldn't care about 90% of what that all said,and the other no biased,civil 10% would be too hard to get out and reply to.
i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
im sure you guys will find plenty of ways to smash that article to pieces,but hey,i found his writing style amusing,so i got something out of it either way.
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
I've just skimmed that article and it's just so hopelessly wrong it made me laugh.
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 03:07:36
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
Howard A Treesong wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
you are aware that a good deal of Roman aristocracy were gay, right? That's right..they only slept with women when they felt the need to breed..Ergo, it's not a new phenomenon. It's a sexual practise dating back almost 2000 years.
so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble 
g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f