Eviloution is fiction. God created us in his divine image
 

We did not come from monkeys. If we came from monkeys why is it that a monkey doesn't produce A human now? Obviously monkeys only make other monkeys. We couldn't have come from monkeys. How anyone can believe in the crap theory of evilution? Think for yourself people...dont just believe everything they tell u in school. Question everything.

Obviously you do not know the first thing about evolution.

Evolution does NOT teach that we came from monkeys, rather, that we changed and adapted in order to survive over the millenia. Survival of the fittest, etc. And evolution is seen around us all the time. Bacteria and viruses change and adapt to the antibiotics and antivirals we create every year so that a new one is needed to counteract the new strain.

I firmly believe in evolution and creation, so you know that I'm not some random atheist. But if anything, you need to pull your head out your ass and re-examine the theory of evolution, because you look uneducated and no one here will take you seriously. You are the one who needs to think for himself, seeing as how you do NOT understand a thing about evolution.

Also: "evilution?" What the hell, man? Seriously, did it take you all day to come up with that crap? A kindergartener is quicker than you on the draw. (Sorry to flame, but that was asking for it, seriously!)

Saying that evolution is fiction is a little far fetched. There is strong scientific evidence of evolution present in many things. I do agree with you on a few things, though. I believe that we were created by God. I also agree that if we did evolve from monkeys, where is that definitive evidence? That missing link. I see large quantities of dinosaur/bird links but not many monkey/man links. And if we evolved from monkeys, why haven't the monkeys died out like the dinosaurs with birds?

But, to paraphrase Stan off of South Park, maybe evolution is the answer to how and not why?

EDIT: (I would like to state for my own safety, I'm referring to the evolution he's thinking of. I understand the theory itself. For example, humans have evolved from needing wisdom teeth given we do not need to chew untenderized meat. Or whatever the devil they're for.)

But all the evilutionists will tell you that we did come from monkeys. Have you not seen the lineages?

[QUOTE[And evolution is seen around us all the time. Bacteria and viruses change and adapt to the antibiotics and antivirals we create every year so that a new one is needed to counteract the new strain.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that things don't change and adapt. Definately bacterias and viruses change and there our mutations and stuff, but when a bacteria or a virus makes a person then you come talk to me.

You can't believe in both evilution and creation in the way that it is taut by the bible. From the sond of it you do seem like some random athiest.

I understand plenty of evilution. Having things change from something they are not. Just tell me the last time that one thing was seen giving birth to something totally different. Show me once when a dog changed into a platypus and I'll believe you.

Also, EVILoution leads to lawlessness and genocide. If only the strong are supposed to survive, why don't we just kill of all the weak ones? Your THEORY is EVIL so I'm going to call it eviloution.

Scientific evidence is nothing compared to biblical evidence and the glory of God.

I've not met a person who is for evolution who teaches that or even agrees with that statement. I've read that we have a lot in common as far as how our chromosomes are made up. I can see how you'd be confused by the two.


Then you do understand THAT is the theory of evolution, right? Has nothing to do with us coming from monkeys.


No, I am a homosexual (heretical) Sufi Muslim. And you can believe in evolution and the creation. Allah can implement evolution in the creation of the universe, world, and man.


That is not evolution. Again, you know naught of evolution. It's about changing and adapting to your everchanging environment in order to survive and excel as a species.

What the hell is that? Where do you even GET that from? Evolution in no way, shape, or form leads to lawlessness and genocide. Evolution is a neutral thing. Man makes his own decisions.

Disagree with the first, agree with the second. The bible provides historical documentation and faith inspiring passages. As I stated before quoting South Park, couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why? Maybe God furthered the advancement of his creations through evolution and not design to destroy?

Then again, there's evidence of man walking beside dinosaurs in fossilized records.

Theistic Evolution is the term for what you're describing. The belief that there was a higher being helping us/everything to evolve. It's what I personally believe in.

I think it's funny how all super-god-is-teh-1337 people think evolution is making something completely different.

The holocaust was not a creature of Adolf Hitler's mind, but of the Catholic church. Even Protestant's famed Martin Luther hated jews with a passion and preached about killing them. The crusades were based off religion. A lot of native americans were killed or turned into slaves unless they converted.

my opinion is this. You all are arguing over 2 theories. evolution and god. what honestly makes sence to you? some almighty being out in no mans land was capable of creating everything here. knows your every move - knows that at the exact second you read this you will start to think of what you could respond with. (doesnt make much logic to me) or that somehow, someway - we got here. there is no definite answer but in the mean time, im going to live my life the way i want to, believe in what i want to, and be who i want to be.

If u look up "human evolution" on wikipedia or any biology textbook you will see a bunch of trees showing how humans came from monkeys, apes, gorillas, etc.

That may be PART OF the theory of evilution. What about macroevolution? What about the stuff that says that one animal can give birth to a totally different type of animal?

The Quran is a heretical book. Look to the bible if you want real answers.

Then why do so many textbooks show evilution as one species changing into another? Why does it always say that humans came from apes?

What about people like Darwin's own cousin who tried to use his theory to promote eugenics?

---

How can God make the world in seven days and evilution be right? The scientists say it took millions and millions of years? The Bible is the inerrant word of God. It can't be right and evolution be right.

---

Isn't that what the theory of evolution says? Doesn't it say that we were once mud, and then lightning struck the ground and we became these living cells and then the cells just decided to stop being cells and they became more complicated organisms and then they became human?

---

Hitler was a atheist. And the wrong-doing of a few people doesn't mean that the whole religion should be held accountable.

---

The tiny bombardier beetle could not possibly have evolved. His defence mechanism is amazingly complicated, and could only have been created with all the parts working together perfectly. From twin ‘exhaust tubes’ at his tail, this beetle fires into the face of his enemies boiling-hot noxious gases with a loud pop.

How can this be? German chemist Dr Schildknecht discovered that the beetle mixes two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which would usually form a dirty ugly mixture. The well-designed beetle uses a special ‘inhibitor’ chemical to keep the mixture from reacting. How then can the explosion instantaneously occur when needed?

Dr Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle’s specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode—but not so soon as to blow up the beetle, of course!

Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded!

Edited by Lenny

We have an EDIT button for a reason. Use it. This is your only warning. Multi-post on this scale again and you will be banned.

You're saying atheists cause war and shit. The leaders of said religions hated jews and preached hatred to them. They persecuted the jews long before Hitler did. They were NOT atheists. And I'm not entirely sure Hitler was either.

is there a list of rules or something

---------------------------------------------------

well, make another post about it...but that section is for evilution

I suggest you read "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Jobe Martin. It's the only reason that I can't simply believe Evolution as it stands by most Evolutionists. It actually goes into the lack of "Missing Links", as you would put it, naming off and describing creatures such as, as you mentioned, the Bombardier Beetle, as well as Giraffe's and others.

To address your question first:


Yes.

-----

Go on, use the watch-in-the-desert analogy, this thread is crying out for it!

---

Evolution is not something that happens instantly from generation to generation. A monkey did not give birth to a fella with a top hat, suit and briefcase and man was born, ho no. Evolution happens on a genetic level, through tiny mutations in the genes that offspring inherit. Natural selection and "survival of the fittest" also plays its part - if the change in the organism caused by the mutated gene(s) is not right, that organism more often than not doesn't survive.

Take the peppered moth. The vast majority of peppered moths are white, or have light colouring. During the English Industrial revolution, the light coloured lichens on the trees that the moths rested on died out, and the trees became blackened by soot, leading to many of the moths dying out. A random mutation in the gene that controls the colouring of the moths leads to some moths being born black, or with dark colouring. When the lichen thrived, they died out due to predation, and the population of dark peppered moths was very low. When the lichens went, however, the white peppered moths were the ones who started to die out due to predation, and the black variation thrived. These days, with pollution levels being lower than they were a hundred years ago, the white moth is becoming more popular.

That is a form of evolution. Tell me, did your God step in an change the colouring of the moths with his magic finger?

---

And to address some of your other points:


You obviously don't. A dog giving birth to a platypus is not evolution. Try again.

---

I'm sorry, evolution leads to lawlessness and genocide? The Jews have been hunted for nearly two thousand years because of political and religious actions. Hitler didn't want to exterminate an entire race because of evolution. The Tutsi population in Rwanda was not massacred in 1994 by the Hutu population because of evolution - the two communities were at political odds, stretching back hundreds of years. The genocide carried out by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995 was for cultural reasons.

Explain to me, without ambiguities, how evolution leads to lawlessness and genocide.

---

Evidence is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Show me your evidence for Creation, and I'll show you the evidence from the Scientific world for evolution.

---

From Wikipedia, the Human Evolution article:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_life.svg.png

Dayumm! Those monkeys sure were randy buggers.

---

I'm sorry, have you been snorting something? Show me.

---

Again, show me.

---

I'm impressed - you've provided an actual fact.

Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, drew from Darwin's early work to formulate the modern field of eugenics. It can be described as:

A social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.

Evolution, on the other hand, is:

The process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

To use evolution to promote eugenics is foolish. Evolution is a natural process which involves gene mutations, and natural selection. Eugenics is designing a human based on what you want. Evolution would not lead to a tiger with bright pink skin and sky blue dots, but eugenics would lead to its creation.

---


OK then, tell me, how old is the earth?

---


I ought to record this and play it whenever you claim things: "Show me."

---


Hitler was by no means the first to try to wipe out the Jews.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

Hitler was one of the more recent persecutors in a long line of persecutors, stretching back to the Egyptians - the Jews have enjoyed around 4000-5000 years.

As to whether Hitler was religious or not, it's a matter of debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...igious_beliefs. His hatred for Jews came from more personal experiences rather than religious ones, though.

-----

I miss MJ. :( :cry:

You can't really take a lot of what's put on Wikipedia to be serious. Anyone can edit entries and evolution is a hot topic and liable to be changed. And my biology textbook told me it had to to with changing and adapting to survive, not that we can from primates. I would LOVE to see the textbook you're reading, though.


I've not heard of things like that. It's something that's highly improbable, as to give birth to something entirely different in species of animals would mean that the chromosomes somehow could match and all that jazz.


I do not insult the Bible and condemn it as a "heretical" book. Why do you condemn the Qur'an? How does that help your argument in any sort of way? I used to be Christian--Catholic, in fact. I have read the entire Bible and I used to know it like the back of my hand (sadly, no more since I left the faith years ago). I believe that al-Islam has more answers than Christianity does and ever will. So I believe I have the book for the real answers, thank you.


Again, I would REALLY love to see the textbooks you're reading. No biology textbook I've come across says that at all. It's suggested that we possibly evolved from primates, but it's not stated as fact.


Do not people use religion to promote eugenics? Do people not use religion to promote hatred, intolerance, and war? Anything can be misused so that evil can be done unto our fellow men. People, my dear hovind, are the corrupt ones, not science, not religion, not music, etc.

Well, everyone already beat me to line for pretty much every line I wanted to attack, besides one!


It's interesting how you tell us to think for ourselves. I love the fact that you're not thinking for yourself, but instead thinking how the Bible tells you how you should speak, think, and act. Watch yourself before you go throwing around stupid lines like that.

Also, the Bible is bullshit. It was written long after the birth of Jesus, blah, blah, blah. I can't believe in one God, I can't believe in Multiple Gods, and I can't believe that we appeared through some weird theory. I stand on the grounds in the middle of all of you, as an agnostic thinker.

What answers would that be? These answers? The ones I obtained simply by paying attention to what I was reading? I didn't even see this site before I started to shoot down half the crap in the bible. I gotta admit though this site makes it easier. Props to voodookobra.

The Bible isn't the greatest story ever told.

" It honestly pisses me off when Bible-thumpers try to claim that "the Bible is the greatest story ever told" and then refuse to accept that it's a work of fiction. Besides that, The Epic of Gilgamesh is miles more fascinating than the Holy Bible. I recommend that anyone with enough spare time reads it; it's a good read. Which leads into the next item on my checklist of ass-kickery: "

Much of the Bible is "borrowed" from other ancient religions.

" Here's some historical perspective for you: Easter was a pagan celebration[2] and much of the story of Jesus's life was plagiarized from the Zoroastrian god Mithra[3][4][5] as well as other ancient savior gods.
In addition, there are many parallels to the Torah (which is the first 5 books of the Bible) and the previously-mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh[6].

If there was any truth behind these absurd beliefs, it was stolen from older religions."

The Bible offers little advancement in morality.

"Despite the historical plagiarism and lack of evidence in favor of Christianity, church leaders try to avoid the issue by saying that the church (not just the Catholic Church, either) promotes general morality and is therefore a necessary part of life.
The reality is that these people are so full of shit that their eyes are brown."

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The Bible is not a source of advice or wisdom.

" In God's Debris, Scott Adams wrote: "People think they follow advice but they don't. Humans are only capable of receiving information." Since the Bible was written thousands of years ago when people believed the Earth was flat and the moon emitted light (by the way: the moon only reflects light), the information it contains is archaic and, in most cases, not applicable to modern society."

The Bible is full of historical inaccuracies.

" There's too many historical inaccuracies in the Bible to list them all, but here's a start: "

" Jesus didn't walk on water.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-co...erwalking.html "

" The Exodus probably didn't happen.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-co...os_exodus.html "

" The Ten Commandments are, well, a bit screwy.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-co...ommandmts.html "

" The walls of Jericho never fell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ho#Historicity "

" Three of those links are on a website called The Other Bible; the best starting place for verifying the historicity of the Bible that I could find.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/ "

"Biblical wisdom is an oxymoron."

"Before anyone bothers to send me a hate-filled email to curse me and threaten me with being immolated for eternity by your kind and loving God, check all the sources I cited and do a little research (after all, one source is never enough)."

" To the Catholic Church: Who's a bigger threat to your insecurities and your lies now: Dan Brown or me? Go ahead and tell all of your worshipers to boycott my website if that's what gets you guys off (y'know, other than children)."

To my main man voodookobra at kobras corner. I love you. Keep on kicking ass. This is his works.

Troll better.

Seriously.

No! Plain and simple. Evolution does not "explain" that one being magically decided one day to perform a transformation act and become a fucking human.

By the "super-god-is-teh-1337" comment was that only religious idiots try to convince everyone else they are right! Want proof? How many dumb fucks do you see running through rural neighborhoods passing out flyers preaching about science? Thought so.

If the bible is so awesome and mighty, then why have 2 people who ADMIT to following it, turn their backs towards it? KagomJack has said he turned away from it for his reasons, and I have turned my back on it. I used to go to the damn sunday school and wednesday mass or whatever. And even at that young age, I saw that the bible was flawed. Shit didn't make sense to me, and for a kid to find that out, is pretty damn sad.

No one is trying to say you are less of a person for having a belief. You are less of a person because you choose to follow said belief blindly.

To show a stronger connection between primates and humans, watch the show Evolve. The first episode (or I think it was the first) was about eyes. The placement of our eyes is theorized to be the reason for our intelligence. First, let's start off with the eye itself. It allows us to see color and shade. That's it. The first creature to be pointed out as having the most basic eye, meaning an organ used to sense the world around it using light, was a small jellyfish type animal. It has (yes has, as in it is still around today) small spots around the base of its "body" that allows it sense the difference between light and dark. That organ is flat. Now, basic geometry comes into play. If said organ were concave, it would 'capture' light and allow the organ a chance to process the light. The first creatures to use a 'lens' were prehistoric fish that crawled along the sea floor (think Kabuto from Pokemon). It secreted a resin from it's body that acted as armor, but also covered its 'eye'. The lens allowed the light to be focused onto a single point, allowing for better peripheral vision. This is where it gets tricky, you ready for this? The eye went down 2 seperate paths! If god had designed everything, why not use the same blueprint? If you had to build 10 houses, would you re-draw blueprints everytime? Thought not. The 2 paths, more common at least, were the segmented, multi-lensed eyes of invertebrates, and the single-lensed, large organ that is used by vertebrates. Again, here comes god, reinventing the fucking wheel too many times to count. The common house fly has as few as 300 lenses per eye. That creates some pretty fuzzy images of the world, but it gives a good 360 degree view of its surroundings. But the dragon fly has as many as 29,000 lenses per eye, which allows for super high resolution vision. Why would god give 2 of his 'precious' creatures 2 different levels of vision? The single-lens eye, also is different between animals/human. In an animal such as the bald eagle, the cornea is raised farther from the iris which allows better focus at great distances. Why wouldn't god allow us to have that? Even after all the wars he has seen us in? Wouldn't you want to see your enemy from almost 2 miles away? I sure would. Onward though. The location of the eye is also different between even mammals. Some have eyes to the far sides of their skull, others, eyes are pointed straight out, such as in humans. Our eyes have a large degree of overlap, which allows us depth perception. In our closest relatives, primates, it aided them in jumping from tree to tree. Can you see how it would be beneficial? Imagine you go to jump to a tree, but you notice mid-air that it's too far away. Not only are you going to fall to the floor and break a limb, you will be easy food for a predator. Pay attention to this next part, as it blows the whole "god made us" thing to shit. Being as our eyes face forward, and we needed to watch all around us for predators, wouldn't it have been easier for god to "poof" eyes into the back of our head? Hell, then we would have perfect 360 degree depth perception. But instead, the primates formed clans. They learned to protect each other. They learned to pay attention to body language and facial gestures. They learned to communicate! All to protect themselves from predators. But god could have easily have intervened and given them body armor. Because he's magical and makes everything perfect, right?

Obviously, science realizes that a homo sapien wasn't just formed one day out of the blue from whatever other species. That is why there is an ongoing search for the "missing link".

I had a TON more to say, but I suffer from something I call 'Can't-Express-Thoughts' Syndrome. I always get what I want to say all planned out in my head, but when I go to put it to paper, or say it, or type it, it gets all jumbled up and I can't remember half of what I had planned...

As for my first post, it was supposed to be longer, but halfway through it, I decided I didn't want to get involved, but I guess it still posted some of it...

wow. this guy seems like a total douche. personally, i'm against most religions, if someone wants to believe in something that seems like complete bullshit only because it makes them happy, then why not. but if someone tries to preach their shit to me i will tell them to go shoot themself.




there is so much proof that "god" and pretty much everything in the bible is just one big fat story. whereon the other hand evolution has been proved and isnt just written about in some big book being slapped into peoples faces.

I don't think he's going to read that.

I'm suprised I read it. I saw the pokemon refference while skimming and almost decided not to.

Oh you!

What I find that is hilarious is that he just was like, "NO YER WRONG, isn't he breaking the rules or something?" about me. What a retard.

I predict an answer to everything from him that will be along the lines of "It's that way because God made it that way and that's that."

I still want him to post, dammit. I'm not content unless I get some arguing in.

Normally I don't double-post, but this is on the behalf of a friend of mine:
megman says:
Before I begin, a brief introduction:

Kagom and myself are both members of another board, and recently the same topic has been discussed there. Kagom pointed me in the direction of this thread, and I felt compelled to respond.

-No, we didn’t. Our current understanding of evolution indicates our lineage originated with apes, which in turn evolved from prosimians. “Monkey” actually refers to two distinct groups of animals, one of which evolved from apes separately, and one of which evolved from prosimians. To even suggest that proponents of evolution believe we evolved from monkeys shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic.

-Again, you’re showing a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is not deterministic, it does not dictate that one type of animal will turn into another, or that a specific evolutionary path will be followed. We would not see monkeys (or, more accurately, apes) following the same evolutionary path we have because evolution does not work like that. If we were to observe a species long enough to be able to note speciation, we would not see all related species following the same evolutionary path. Species evolve in response to specific forces and pressures, which can and do vary between species and even populations. Thus, if we were to watch monkeys evolve, they could evolve into something entirely different from humans, or something similar, depending on the pressures and forces driving their evolution. We would not, however, see monkeys (or apes) evolving into humans.

Further, your argument assumes that while we have continued evolving, monkeys (or apes) have not. Just as we have evolved and changed from our common ancestor, so have apes- in fact, the aforementioned monkeys which evolved from apes are proof of this.

-Perhaps if you actually took the time to understand evolution, instead of the constantly-parroted misinterpretations and misconceptions of it, you would understand why it is such a compelling argument.

-Again, you’re relying on the (false) notion that evolution is deterministic. It isn’t.

-What people can and cannot believe is entirely up to them, not you.

-Then perhaps you should learn how to spell it.

-That’s an oversimplified and only semi-accurate definition of evolution.

-You’re either contradicting yourself or relying on a false assumption. You’ve already stated that organisms are capable of changing in response to their environment, something they achieve through modification and reproduction. If, on the other hand, you’re arguing we will see evolution achieving speciation or drastic differences in morphology in one generation, again, you are relying on a false assumption. Evolution occurs within populations, not with single individuals.

-Again, you’re relying on the idea that evolution is deterministic. You’ll never see any other animal “turning into” a platypus or some other previously existing animals because that’s not how it works. We can 9and have) seen organisms undergo modification to the point where they are considered new species. We have, in fact, observed speciation in the lab.

-Only when misapplied by weak minds.

-Again, you display the fact you don’t know what you’re talking about. Evolution by means of natural selection only deals with fitness,. Fitness, in the evolutionary sense, does not mean “better”, “faster”, or “smarter”. “Fitness” merely refers to fecundity- it’s about who has the most kids. The more kids you have, the more fit you are, and the better off you are from an evolutionary standpoint.

That’s all.

Only weak minds would assume that evolution necessitates the intentional and willful killing of people for the purpose of furthering evolution.

-No, it won’t, because we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from apes. If you’re going to discuss this stuff, you should know the difference.

-Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Evolution acts on populations, not single individuals, and the type of evolution you’re talking about cannot occur over a single generation. Either you’re intentionally misrepresenting the issue (Straw Man fallacy) or you really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.

-Because what you call macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing, just over different periods of time. Modifications and adaptations add up, and in populations isolated from each other, result in speciation.

-Because we do. And I thought you were claiming evolution states we came from monkeys- which is it, monkeys or apes? You’re not being very consistent.

-This question was already answered:
-No, it doesn’t. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only its modification.

Your interpretation of what we think we can conclude about the origin of life (which, again, is not part of evolutionary theory) is a combination of misconception and misunderstanding.

-If you’re going to “borrow” another person’s work, you should at least give them credit. Failure to do so is highly frowned upon.

The source of the above material: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...bombardier.asp

Not exactly unbiased…

In any case, evolution is completely able to account for the origin of such mechanisms. I am, unfortunately, not an expert in beetles, but I would hypothesize that such a mechanism may have started as a simpler defense mechanism such as those seen in stink beetles which allowed the production of an irritant (the peroxidase described in the article could be considered such a substance), and successive modifications, possibly as a result of duplications or other coding errors, may have added the ability to produce a second compound, and eventual modifications may have eventually resulted in a combination of substances which, when mixed, produced a much more potent irritant.

For a more in-depth explanation of the topics than I could ever hope to provide, I suggest reading the following:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...yth%20Exploded

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html


Oh, and cute name. I actually saw Hovind speak once. He utterly ignored many argument presented to him when he asked for explanations, and did not address the issues he himself raised when others offered arguments that contradicted his, choosing instead to ignore them and move on to another of his “arguments”, which were largely based on misinterpretations and even flat-out deceit. I even distinctly remember him contradicting himself when discussing the argument concerning the second law of thermodynamics (another argument based on misconceptions).

In any case, I find it interesting you’ve named yourself after a man who is currently in federal prison for acts including evasion and corrupt obstruction (related to tax laws).

To quote the great Michaelangelo (yes the Ninja Turtle)

"I think I'm in looove" XD

Anyways, the Pokemon reference was only because I am sure a majority of the people here know what Kabuto looks like, and I don't have the correct name of the creature... don't hate me... :(

Everyone in here fell for the troll except for me. I pronounce my superiority.

I are sad. =(

Damnit.. I missed a weekend of Zelaron and look what happens. I would type out a well-thought reply, but by the looks of it, you guys did it for me. I'm impressed.

What are you talking about?

The guy in the first post is clearly not serious.

You sly dog. It was you the whole time wasn't it? Oh if it was you that was a mighty burn.

So true.

Clearly.

Yeah.

That makes me so sad. =(

Well...that was the most active I've been in a while...