I hate intelligent design

BWX · May 9, 2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

This is why I don't answer your question. I don't care about the answer. No matter how life got here, I'm only interested in what happened after that moment.

So I've completely defined what I mean by origin of life (for the fifth time), and I've stated why it doesn't matter what that moment was. So now we can stop talking about it.

Ok so- instead of a puddle of goo with no life- lets start from the one celled organism..

It is equally preposterous to think that a Man evolved from a one celled organism no matter how much time is involved.

Zelig · May 10, 2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Ok so- instead of a puddle of goo with no life- lets start from the one celled organism..

It is equally preposterous to think that a Man evolved from a one celled organism no matter how much time is involved.

The concept of four billion years of evolution can be difficult to grasp. That's about 53 million times longer than the average human lifespan, 3 million times longer than the entire timeline of Christianity, and over 39 thousand times longer than the human species has existed.

Obviously, I can't provide support for every stage of mankind's evolution from the first cellular life-forms because of the vast amounts of information available, but if you have any specific assertions about any species' evolution, I'd be happy to try and address them.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 12:14 AM

I can grasp it- it isn't like I never heard it before and my little brain can't fathom it.
I just don't buy it.. don't think it happened that way.. Any "proof" I have seen is very suspect. I think I would rather believe Adam and Eve than that bologna.

Zelig · May 10, 2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

I just don't buy it.. don't think it happened that way.. Any "proof" I have seen is very suspect. I think I would rather believe Adam and Eve than that bologna.

Well, like I said, post anything you think is suspect or that doesn't make sense, and I can give a good explanation for it, if you don't want to discuss any part of it though, I can't go anywhere with it.

YAYitsAndrew · May 10, 2006, 12:26 AM

You have a lot of reading to do. If you go to the tree of life and take a look at its branches, you will find any number of referenced scientific journals about the particular node at the bottom of the page. There exists an uncountable amount of published works in the scientific community dealing with the proof you are looking for.

They are of the same logical thinking, observation, and experimentation that fuels scientific papers you may more readily accept from fields such as neuroscience and chemistry.

This is where the tree starts.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth

Falstaff · May 10, 2006, 06:33 AM

The one salient point here regardless of which side of the fence so to speak is:
Without the desire to learn and the thirst for knowlege we might never have reached a point so thus far where we challenge "God" somehow and spiritual beliefs. I mean does the rest of the world really care? And the armchair scientists and scholars really make a difference? I believe that each new generation that succesively assumes its place will strive to explain more about the physical universe so that we may one day leave this planet and colonize other planets and spread the seeds of life further, and yet among the population of doubters and explainers and joiners will be the faithful that will see it all as a Divine plan that unfolds before us, if one believes. But without some spirituality or faith in the intangible and unseen "God" or supreme being, what we know about the solar systems seems so chaotic. If you look at a Buckey ball, or a snowflake or crystal you can hypothesis any number of ways to suggest an "order" of things in the universe, if not intelligent design then what? I say let those that believe cling to their faith without rationalizing or explaining away their desire to embrace a "plan or design" to explain it all. I believe we are just discovering more of a fantastic world in only three dimensions, how dare we suggest that no supreme being exists?

Pompey · May 10, 2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

how dare we suggest that no supreme being exists?

Well we have no evidence for it, so why believe it? There could be a "god", we dont know. All I know is that when someone makes a claim, scientific or religious, they need to back it up. ID cannot provide any evidence supporting it, or even show how they scientifically came to the conclusions they did.

I dont have the capacity to answer what initially "sparked" life and neither do any of you, so therefore I will not debate it.

Falstaff · May 10, 2006, 12:11 PM

precisely my argument...
we can use whatever proof we choose to validate either position
intelligent design is proof of existence of a higher power or supreme entity that constructed our known universe..
intelligent design is the product of superstitiouis minds and is not based on any rationelle or proven hypothesis that we can see, touch or feel.
If there is order in our universe and that we can agree upon it's existence with whatever means we deem acceptable and we can speak of it using the universal language of mathematics, then perhaps it is plausible that if not a supreme being, then perhaps creatures or process that are intelligent enough to have stopped here on this sphere of molten iron and celestial conglomerate and sowed the seeds for the world we know now?
Either way, it begs the same questions IMO.
it isnt about any one design, any one perception based on "religion" or faith, it is the very curiosity that fuels our desire to "know" and to "learn" and to "strive".
If there is a legacy of sorts we are left with, it is that we are more that the primordial ooze we may have emerged from, more than the sum of all the cosmic elements that are arranged into the image of our God or higher power. We are unique? We are the products of intelligent design? Perhaps we are just an evolutionary phase of a race off beings that will someday return to the stars and plant the seeds of even greater beings, with our spirituality still intact. then we will "fizzle" out and die like the last embers of our dying world............................one day.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 04:54 PM

Evolution:

Organization and intelligence the product of chaos and nothingness after a series of random changes in what started as nothing. That's a hard pill to swallow.

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 05:14 PM

If you think everything is so simple, just remove your head from the PC screen and look out into space or towards the earth's magnaet fields where only chaos reigns.

Or deep down the ocean where the water is ice cold almost yet super blast heated geysers form and life appears around it. Evolution is a proven theory mate, dunno why you try to contradict that.

But with your ruddy arugments, I'm really starting to think there is no evolution since we are supposed to be the smartest beings on this planet.... You are completely disproving that

EDIT: And you think that a god with a giant finger pressing into the earth and creating life is MORE belieavalbe?

YAYitsAndrew · May 10, 2006, 05:36 PM

The changes were not random. They were guided by a process known as natural selection. Do your homework.

Falstaff · May 10, 2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

The changes were not random. They were guided by a process known as natural selection. Do your homework.

tsk tsk...theories theories theories...

who says that natural selection is the only way to explain the hierarchy of beings in our world or whether a species will be successful or not.

explain natural selection and I will be impressed.

oh and by the way....

prove it.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

The changes were not random. They were guided by a process known as natural selection. Do your homework.

Yeah I want proof too. You have a lot of homework to do if you can accomplish that feat... you would be the first person in history to prove it.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

If you think everything is so simple, just remove your head from the PC screen and look out into space or towards the earth's magnaet fields where only chaos reigns.

Or deep down the ocean where the water is ice cold almost yet super blast heated geysers form and life appears around it. Evolution is a proven theory mate, dunno why you try to contradict that.

But with your ruddy arugments, I'm really starting to think there is no evolution since we are supposed to be the smartest beings on this planet.... You are completely disproving that

EDIT: And you think that a god with a giant finger pressing into the earth and creating life is MORE belieavalbe?

Hey, at least my sentences make some kind of sense.

but yeah, you got me.. my [COLOR=Sienna]reddish [/COLOR][COLOR=DarkRed] brown[/COLOR] argumnets make no sense.

Evolution to the degree you guys so blindly believe is not proven in any way shape or form.

-macro evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers...

4 entries found for ruddy.
rud·dy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rd)
adj. rud·di·er, rud·di·est

Having a healthy, reddish color.
Reddish; rosy.
Chiefly British Slang. Used as an intensive: “You ruddy liar!” (John Galsworthy).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English rudi, from Old English rudig. See reudh- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ruddi·ly adv.
ruddi·ness n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: rud·dy
Pronunciation: 'r&d-E
Function: adjective
Inflected Forms: rud·di·er; -est
: having a healthy reddish color <a ruddy complexion>

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

ruddy

adj 1: inclined to a healthy reddish color often associated with outdoor life; "a ruddy complexion"; "Santa's rubicund cheeks"; "a fresh and sanguine complexion" [syn: rubicund, sanguine] 2: having any of numerous bright or strong colors reminiscent of the color of blood or cherries or tomatoes or rubies [syn: red, reddish, blood-red, carmine, cerise, cherry, cherry-red, crimson, ruby, ruby-red, scarlet

Falstaff · May 10, 2006, 07:53 PM

oh god the drama....
and there is still quite alot of daytime televison too..

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 08:00 PM

Ruddy is a british slang as you very well quoted BWX... Maybe read your own posts before actually posting?

Apart from that, even if evolution is only 90% confirmed, it isn't as unconfirmed and "random" and "chaotic" as you try and make everyone believe. Did you even have evolution in school?

Maddogg6 · May 10, 2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Yeah I want proof too. You have a lot of homework to do if you can accomplish that feat... you would be the first person in history to prove it.

But, before you said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

I think I would rather believe Adam and Eve than that bologna.

I want proof of adam and eve's existance (a religious notion) - you'd be the first to prove this also - but you choose to believe instead. Thats hypocritical!

THE FACT of my appendix, and my lack of needing it, as well as, witnessing how quickly bacteria grows in a matter of days - is evidence enough for me to accept evolution as a plausble explanation.

THE FACT I can CHOOSE or SELECT with whom I procreate with, is proof enough for me to consider 'natural selection' as plausable.

I'll be the first to admit, or brains havent evolved enough to comprehend everything, but I beleive we will at some point. But....only with the help of science. Religious notions have ONLY hampered scientific progress, buy putting 'blinders' on the masses - creating closed minded habits.

Theres NO LOGIC in religious notions, and thus, NO PLACE for it in the scientific community. Scientists at least strive to prove or disprove theories - and not threaten 'blasphamey' when argued, like many of the adam and eve proponants do.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

But, before you said...

I want proof of adam and eve's existance (a religious notion) - you'd be the first to prove this also - but you choose to believe instead. Thats hypocritical!

THE FACT of my appendix, and my lack of needing it, as well as, witnessing how quickly bacteria grows in a matter of days - is evidence enough for me to accept evolution as a plausble explanation.

I'll be the first to admit, or brains havent evolved enough to comprehend everything, but I beleive we will at some point. But....only with the help of science. Religious notions have ONLY hampered scientific progress, buy putting 'blinders' on the masses - creating closed minded habits.

Theres NO LOGIC in religious notions, and thus, NO PLACE for it in the scientific community. Scientists at least strive to prove or disprove theories - and not threaten 'blasphamey' when argued, like many of the adam and eve proponants do.

You are talking about micro evolution not macro evolution... One has nothing to do with the other. Micro evolution has nothing to do with one organism turning into a completely different organism.. (example- a monkey into a man)

I am not trying to prove anything- I have said it many times. I'm not the one that is saying he hates a theory or people that have or believe a theory.

I didn't start a thread claiming I was right and everyone else was wrong..
Let me state -
-macro evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

THE FACT I can CHOOSE or SELECT with whom I procreate with, is proof enough for me to consider 'natural selection' as plausable.

Unless you can choose to mate with an animal outside your species and create a completely new and different hybrid animal (goat-boy) or (ape-man)- then the plausibility of your theory means nothing- and has nothing to do with macro evolution, which is what we are talking about.

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

-macro evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers...

So all the SCIENTIFIC journouls all over the world that have made written reports about this is from believes and not scientists? Oh please, evvolution is taught in every Swiss school in the "biology" class which is science as far as I know and here, all the teachers make fun of you big boys in the US where you are teaching creationism and outlawing evolution...

BWX · May 10, 2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Ruddy is a british slang as you very well quoted BWX... Maybe read your own posts before actually posting?

Apart from that, even if evolution is only 90% confirmed, it isn't as unconfirmed and "random" and "chaotic" as you try and make everyone believe. Did you even have evolution in school?

Ok, as long as you think that saying an argument is a color makes sense.

Again, macro Evolution is ZERO percent confirmed. It is neither random nor chaotic, it is non existent. I was using those words as an example of what the "theory" says happens in macro evolution..

-random differences in DNA that benefit an organism so that slightly changed organism has an advantage and becomes more dominant and stronger in it's environment than the non randomly changed organism, thus prospering more in it's environment.
After hundreds of thousands of these random events, "natural selection" magically turns a one celled organism into a man, a dog, a tree, a bird, or a fish..

Maybe you should go read a little more about it? At least you would know more about the side you are on?

BWX · May 10, 2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

So all the SCIENTIFIC journouls all over the world that have made written reports about this is from believes and not scientists? Oh please, evvolution is taught in every Swiss school in the "biology" class which is science as far as I know and here, all the teachers make fun of you big boys in the US where you are teaching creationism and outlawing evolution...

Ok, let me de-program your brain a little.. obviously you do not question your superiors.. Congratulations, you will so well in the Army!

There are 2 kinds of evolution- micro evolution which is "observable".. and macro evolution which is "not observable"

Micro evolution is a process of small and relatively limited change in the individuals of a given species - do you you hear that? one species... that produce changes we can see- example, among cats and dogs.

Macro evolution is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists [COLOR=Red]believe [/COLOR] changes one kind of living organism into a completely different kind or organism.. like changing a lizard into a bird or like changing a monkey into a human...

Quite obviously, no one has ever observed anything even remotely like this ever actually happen.

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 09:06 PM

Okay dude we agree life started as one celled life WITHOUT a nucleus? After a few hundred million years, random mutation dide cells WITH nucleus? Now it is known that many one celled life forms actually group together in colonies mate... Hmmm, that's pretty close to a simple unicellulare life form like a sponge where every cell is the same.

Now more mutations make them start to specialize (again millions of years) and as the orgasnism gets more and more complicated, they mutate faster. Just look at the mutations of the human genome and you'll understand this fact quite easily. The more complicated a life form, the more chances for it to screw up.

That's the basic theory of evolution and it ISN'T disproven.. Much the contrary.

And maybe you should read your own bloody definition of RUDDY BWX

Quote:

hiefly British Slang. Used as an intensive: “You ruddy liar!”

Sometimes dude, I really wonder if you read my posts.

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Quite obviously, no one has ever observed anything even remotely like this ever actually happen.

Do you wanna know WHY? Because humans don't live for 100 million years to see the effects. As I've said many times before

But we are smart and you can piece back a puzzle mate. Perfect example: No human as EVER since Pangea or whatever the supercontinent was called but we noticed that Africa and South America seem to fit like a glove and thus, this theory is FACT even though no human can see what scientists and geoligists believe.

SAME for the evolution theory...

BWX · May 10, 2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Okay dude we agree life started as one celled life WITHOUT a nucleus? After a few hundred million years, random mutation dide cells WITH nucleus? Now it is known that many one celled life forms actually group together in colonies mate... Hmmm, that's pretty close to a simple unicellulare life form like a sponge where every cell is the same.

Now more mutations make them start to specialize (again millions of years) and as the orgasnism gets more and more complicated, they mutate faster. Just look at the mutations of the human genome and you'll understand this fact quite easily. The more complicated a life form, the more chances for it to screw up.

That's the basic theory of evolution and it ISN'T disproven.. Much the contrary.

.

I'm not in Britain.. are you? Never heard it and saying that a person is ruddy and then saying an argument is ruddy makes little sense-
"an intensive" -a ruddy liar.. ok, you said a ruddy argument.. :-/

I guess you just refuse to admit to yourself that there is a huge difference between micro and macro evolution. It looks as though they did not teach you that part.. the part that proves everything they tell you to blindly believe is not fact and does not even have the merit of what it takes to be called a scientific theory.

You are quite inadequately attempting to combine the two or explain one by proving the other exists and is real. I do not dispute micro evolution.. I dispute macro evolution. There is no proof- micro evolution is not proof that macro evolution occurred and did such things as turn a monkey into a man.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Do you wanna know WHY? Because humans don't live for 100 million years to see the effects. As I've said many times before

But we are smart and you can piece back a puzzle mate. Perfect example: No human as EVER since Pangea or whatever the supercontinent was called but we noticed that Africa and South America seem to fit like a glove and thus, this theory is FACT even though no human can see what scientists and geoligists believe.

SAME for the evolution theory...

Wait I found the proof!- You guys are all right and I must admit I am wrong..
Sorry for wasting your time but it was fun having this discussion. The proof that Sandok, Yayitsandrew, Zelig, and Maddogg6 did in fact come form Apes finally has appeared!

Yes you guys all have a common ancestor of a monkey- I admit that now.
I am sorry I ever doubted you!

I never thought about this before, but when you go to the zoo and see a monkey do you think, hey great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, etc... grandpa, why do you throw poo at me? I am your flesh and blood!?

Well, at least I know why you guys are so angry all the time.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yep! There you guys are- the last million years..

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 10:04 PM

You completely avoided my post... End of debate for me there

And you are the living proof that the intelligent design can't work since well, this last post of yours was FAR from intelligent.

BWX · May 10, 2006, 10:13 PM

I answered it in the post above actually.. the post above my last post. Damn you monkey relatives are so sensitive!

Falstaff · May 10, 2006, 10:17 PM

alright you two, its almost dinner time..LOL
wash your hands and put your shoes away...
we are having hungarian goulash..

BWX · May 10, 2006, 10:18 PM

.. LOL!!!!

Sandok · May 10, 2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

I answered it in the post above actually.. the post above my last post. Damn you monkey relatives are so sensitive!

Not that post, the post after that post

And fallstaff, I don't like hungarian goulash... Honestly

May 10, 2006, 12:14 AM	#63
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	I can grasp it- it isn't like I never heard it before and my little brain can't fathom it. I just don't buy it.. don't think it happened that way.. Any "proof" I have seen is very suspect. I think I would rather believe Adam and Eve than that bologna. __________________

May 10, 2006, 12:26 AM	Thread Starter #65
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	You have a lot of reading to do. If you go to the tree of life and take a look at its branches, you will find any number of referenced scientific journals about the particular node at the bottom of the page. There exists an uncountable amount of published works in the scientific community dealing with the proof you are looking for. They are of the same logical thinking, observation, and experimentation that fuels scientific papers you may more readily accept from fields such as neuroscience and chemistry. This is where the tree starts. http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com

May 10, 2006, 06:33 AM	#66
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	The one salient point here regardless of which side of the fence so to speak is: Without the desire to learn and the thirst for knowlege we might never have reached a point so thus far where we challenge "God" somehow and spiritual beliefs. I mean does the rest of the world really care? And the armchair scientists and scholars really make a difference? I believe that each new generation that succesively assumes its place will strive to explain more about the physical universe so that we may one day leave this planet and colonize other planets and spread the seeds of life further, and yet among the population of doubters and explainers and joiners will be the faithful that will see it all as a Divine plan that unfolds before us, if one believes. But without some spirituality or faith in the intangible and unseen "God" or supreme being, what we know about the solar systems seems so chaotic. If you look at a Buckey ball, or a snowflake or crystal you can hypothesis any number of ways to suggest an "order" of things in the universe, if not intelligent design then what? I say let those that believe cling to their faith without rationalizing or explaining away their desire to embrace a "plan or design" to explain it all. I believe we are just discovering more of a fantastic world in only three dimensions, how dare we suggest that no supreme being exists? __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

May 10, 2006, 12:11 PM	#68
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	precisely my argument... we can use whatever proof we choose to validate either position intelligent design is proof of existence of a higher power or supreme entity that constructed our known universe.. intelligent design is the product of superstitiouis minds and is not based on any rationelle or proven hypothesis that we can see, touch or feel. If there is order in our universe and that we can agree upon it's existence with whatever means we deem acceptable and we can speak of it using the universal language of mathematics, then perhaps it is plausible that if not a supreme being, then perhaps creatures or process that are intelligent enough to have stopped here on this sphere of molten iron and celestial conglomerate and sowed the seeds for the world we know now? Either way, it begs the same questions IMO. it isnt about any one design, any one perception based on "religion" or faith, it is the very curiosity that fuels our desire to "know" and to "learn" and to "strive". If there is a legacy of sorts we are left with, it is that we are more that the primordial ooze we may have emerged from, more than the sum of all the cosmic elements that are arranged into the image of our God or higher power. We are unique? We are the products of intelligent design? Perhaps we are just an evolutionary phase of a race off beings that will someday return to the stars and plant the seeds of even greater beings, with our spirituality still intact. then we will "fizzle" out and die like the last embers of our dying world............................one day. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

May 10, 2006, 04:54 PM	#69
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	Evolution: Organization and intelligence the product of chaos and nothingness after a series of random changes in what started as nothing. That's a hard pill to swallow. __________________

May 10, 2006, 05:14 PM	#70
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	If you think everything is so simple, just remove your head from the PC screen and look out into space or towards the earth's magnaet fields where only chaos reigns. Or deep down the ocean where the water is ice cold almost yet super blast heated geysers form and life appears around it. Evolution is a proven theory mate, dunno why you try to contradict that. But with your ruddy arugments, I'm really starting to think there is no evolution since we are supposed to be the smartest beings on this planet.... You are completely disproving that EDIT: And you think that a god with a giant finger pressing into the earth and creating life is MORE belieavalbe?

May 10, 2006, 05:36 PM	Thread Starter #71
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	The changes were not random. They were guided by a process known as natural selection. Do your homework. __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com

May 10, 2006, 07:53 PM	#75
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	oh god the drama.... and there is still quite alot of daytime televison too.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

May 10, 2006, 08:00 PM	#76
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Ruddy is a british slang as you very well quoted BWX... Maybe read your own posts before actually posting? Apart from that, even if evolution is only 90% confirmed, it isn't as unconfirmed and "random" and "chaotic" as you try and make everyone believe. Did you even have evolution in school?

May 10, 2006, 10:04 PM	#86
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	You completely avoided my post... End of debate for me there And you are the living proof that the intelligent design can't work since well, this last post of yours was FAR from intelligent.

May 10, 2006, 10:13 PM	#87
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	I answered it in the post above actually.. the post above my last post. Damn you monkey relatives are so sensitive! __________________

May 10, 2006, 10:17 PM	#88
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	alright you two, its almost dinner time..LOL wash your hands and put your shoes away... we are having hungarian goulash.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

May 10, 2006, 10:18 PM	#89
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	.. LOL!!!! __________________