| Author |
 Topic  |
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
 Posted - 08/19/2004 : 11:38:59
|
Ok, whoa is this going to take a while!
Ok, Firstly
But I'm still having a problem with the very beginning of the eye. I guess the same way I have a problem with the beginning of all life in the evolutionary view.
I’ll come back to the eye in my next post ‘cos that’s going to be a biggie but because you’re struggling with the how life began side of evolution I’ll start with how I understand it from there. Not the earth or the universe (I’m not a physicist) but life.
Life in its most primitive form is not like the usual definition of life, there isn’t a small oozy animal to observe. The evolution of the simple cell is probably the easiest place to start.
Every single living organism consists of cells. A cell is comprised of a small membrane compartment containing an aqueous solution of chemicals. The simplest organism is made of a single cell and reproduces by splitting. All organisms are thought to have evolved from a common ancestor through cell evolution and natural selection. The two essential processes for which are the occurrences of random variation in genetic information passed onto progeny and selection, choosing the genetic information that ensures survival and propagation.
So how do we get from molecules to a cell? The conditions of the earth around the time of the origins of life are much debated but it is generally agreed that there was little in the way of free oxygen and no ozone, so no protection from UV radiation. This radiation is thought to have kept the earth rich in reactive molecules, no chemical equilibrium. Laboratory testing simulating primitive earth under these conditions have shown it possible for the construction of small inorganic molecules to occur:
I’m not keen on this diagram but it’s the best I can do at the moment. Gasses mixed and heated and energised by UV radiation (or as shown in the diagram “lightning” – the bit I’m not keen on) react to form small inorganic molecules such as HCN – hydrogen-cyanide and HCOH – formaldehyde. Continuing reactions lead to the production of more complex organic compounds such as amino acids:
Glycine: NH2CH2COOH
Alanine: NH2CHCH3COOH
Plus sugars, purines and prymidines, the basic components for nucleotides.
These simple molecules associate:
Amino acid : Peptide bond : Amino acid
Nucleotide : Phosphodiester bond: Nucleotide
Leading to polymerisation forming polypeptides or proteins, and polynucleotides or DNA/RNA
Whilst most processes like this within biological systems are internally catalysed it is thought the initial catalysis in this instance was exothermic. As polymerisation occurs however the expanding molecule can learn to self catalyse, it is this autocatalysm that begins to show life as a polymer shows self promoting properties. Those molecules most efficient in aiding their own production would be able to divert raw materials from other sources, the beginning characteristics of life are shown in the molecules ability to select it’s interacting molecules, self reproduction and competing with other systems for it’ basic “living” requirements. This phenomena of autocatalysm is seen within our own cells in this polypeptide form.
Polynucleotides differ from polypeptides, their ability as a catalyst is more limited but they are able to guide directly their own reproduction, making exact copies of their own sequence. This is dependant on complementary pairing of subunits which means one ‘strand’ of polynucleotides can act as a template for the formation of another. Because of complementary pairing you can pretty much take a strand of RNA (UAGC) or DNA (TAGC) and in the right conditions mix them with a bunch of base nucleotides and they will line up for polymerization in a complementary sequence (I over simplify here maybe) these complementary templating mechanisms are simplistic and core to biological systems (and information transfer) Genetic information is carried and continued through these nucleotide base sequences.
For these mechanisms catalytic activity is core, otherwise the process is crappy really. Slow and under a huge competitive pressure. It is possible that early polypeptides had a catalytic activity that would have helped this process but it is the evolution of RNA molecules of catalyze biochemical reactions that pushed things forward.
Ok, monster headache I’ll finish this later, we still have the joy of RNA as a catalyst, transfer of genetic information, membranes and cells and the DNA story to go.. whew where’s my ibuprofen
 I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
 |
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 15:53:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
Ok, whoa is this going to take a while!
Ok, Firstly
But I'm still having a problem with the very beginning of the eye. I guess the same way I have a problem with the beginning of all life in the evolutionary view.
I’ll come back to the eye in my next post ‘cos that’s going to be a biggie but because you’re struggling with the how life began side of evolution I’ll start with how I understand it from there. Not the earth or the universe (I’m not a physicist) but life.
Life in its most primitive form is not like the usual definition of life, there isn’t a small oozy animal to observe. The evolution of the simple cell is probably the easiest place to start...
Wow talk about flashbacks to biology class. I can understand why you developed a headache. You have to bear with me, I'm a Finance/Economics grad, but I'll read through this a couple more times and try to keep up.
I'll try to dig up some creationist arguments to the long shot odds of the formation of the first amino acids. And I think I remember reading some differing opinions about that famous lightning in a bottle experiment.
I appreciate you and Darwin's response to my Perloff quotes above. If he was truly taking quotes out of context and pursposely distorting the author's original intent, it definitely calls his credibility into question. If I was giving him the benefit of the doubt I would hope that he just came to a different conclusion than the original author and used his quote without distorting his assertions, but I would need to do more research to reach that conclusion, so I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt on that one.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that we need to seriously analyze ALL fossil evidence, and make sure that the method in which this evidence is found and analyzed is done using truly scientific methods, which seems somewhat difficult considering that most of the people doing the digging and analyzing have a pre-conceived idea of what they're looking for and which box they want it to fit into.
|
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 16:16:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
However, that doesn't change my opinion that we need to seriously analyze ALL fossil evidence, and make sure that the method in which this evidence is found and analyzed is done using truly scientific methods, which seems somewhat difficult considering that most of the people doing the digging and analyzing have a pre-conceived idea of what they're looking for and which box they want it to fit into.
holy crab-fucking christ! scientists are the ones who do thorough and objective examination. creationists are the ones with preconcieved notions that they lay upon everything.
finanace/economics... it all makes sense now. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 16:22:58
|
Fossils schmossils. I'm definatley too tried to find my fossils notes.
The ligtning in the bottle experiment as I said is not one I am happy with but I have hashed this piece, this unfinished piece together this afternoon. This was the first of such experiments and if you give me the weekend I'll write you the beginings of the cell and the current theory of eye developement with up to date diagrams and current review articles and paper references. But for now I have to go and cause some trouble round my neighbours flat 'cos I am tired I have a screaming headache and they are now playing fucking bachman turner overdrive throught the god damned walls.
wondring if it might be easier to call the police on these thoughtless shit for brain cock suckers.
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
Edited by - n/a on 08/19/2004 16:35:23 |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 16:34:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
scientists are the ones who do thorough and objective examination. creationists are the ones with preconcieved notions that they lay upon everything.
I never said that creationists didn't have preconceived notions, that seems pretty obvious doesn't it? And if you believe that scientists don't and that they are always thorough and objective you are fooling yourself. |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 17:13:22
|
do you have any idea what the process of being in a lab and working on a project and doing research is like?
creationists are the ones that never spend any time with facts and reality. they live in the old testament. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 17:39:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
do you have any idea what the process of being in a lab and working on a project and doing research is like?
What's your point? I never claimed to be a scientist, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm some sort of expert. I'm not even trying to convince anyone of my point of view, I'm just trying to have a conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
creationists are the ones that never spend any time with facts and reality. they live in the old testament.
Although I'm not a scientist, these guys/gals are (all of them PhD's):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0890513414/qid=1092961183/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-9087692-6340106?v=glance&s=books
I'd even go so far as to say that most of them could probably mop up the floor with you and your arguments, which isn't what I'm trying to do, I freely admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that.
My point is there are plenty of scientists who believe in creation. Plenty who are much smarter, and more educated than any of us. As much as it hurts you to admit this, evolution is only a theory, the merits of which are very debatable (just not so well by me).
|
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 17:48:26
|
sorry, no one who believes in creationism can "mop up the floor" with me. they will just babble about the percieved flaws in evolution and then trumpet their own victory from on high.
a scientist can point to facts that support their theory. creationists just try to point out flaws in someone else's theory, which does not support anything.
there are tons of flaws in our current understanding of gravity. there are flaws in our understanding of anything, as we are incredibly ignorant. however, that does not make the fact that gravity exists and that it does, in fact, hold you to your seat any less valid.
in order for creationism to be a true scientific theory there would have to be facts that support it. like ancient homo sapiens fossils. or evidence of human presence dating back to the dinosaur age. but there is none.
anyone who believes in creationism is willfully ignorant.
you can believe in a higher power, and believe that our universe was set into motion by that higher power. but you cannot dispute that homo sapiens is a relatively new species and has not been around all that long. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 17:54:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
My point is there are plenty of scientists who believe in creation. Plenty who are much smarter, and more educated than any of us. As much as it hurts you to admit this, evolution is only a theory, the merits of which are very debatable (just not so well by me).
Not to be too big of egotistical jerk but I doubt those 50 scienctists are much smarter or more educated than me. My PhD is in ecology and evolution. The editor of that book appears to be a chemist (I can't find the names of the other 49 scientists on the web). As I've said on here before, just because someone has a PhD it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about, particularly when it is not in their field. For example, don't believe anything I say about physics or Chinese history. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:09:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
in order for creationism to be a true scientific theory there would have to be facts that support it.
Whoa, hold the phone. Who said creationism was a scientific theory? Certainly not me. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:20:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
My point is there are plenty of scientists who believe in creation. Plenty who are much smarter, and more educated than any of us. As much as it hurts you to admit this, evolution is only a theory, the merits of which are very debatable (just not so well by me).
Not to be too big of egotistical jerk but I doubt those 50 scienctists are much smarter or more educated than me. My PhD is in ecology and evolution. The editor of that book appears to be a chemist (I can't find the names of the other 49 scientists on the web). As I've said on here before, just because someone has a PhD it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about, particularly when it is not in their field. For example, don't believe anything I say about physics or Chinese history.
Point taken Darwin, you are obviously very knowledgeable and well educated in your discipline. I would love to see a conversation on this topic between yourself and someone with my point of view who was properly educated and able to debate on your level.
The 50 scientists in this book come from many different disciplines and they make their arguments based on their respective specialties. There are physicists, cosmologists, chemists, mathmeticians, biologists, ecologists, etc... Most of them raise unique arguments based on their own disciplines.
I own the book and would be happy to post some names if you were interested. |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:36:46
|
quote:
So, in summary somebody found a fragment in Henry McHenry's paper, which out of context supported their anti-evolution belief.
Creationists take something out of context? I can't believe it! <g>
quote:
I'm creating a new breakfast cereal, with crunchy baby-universe branes.
Complete with:
23 Exciting Fruity Dimensions!
Is String Theory in use here?
quote:
Crap! It'll need a name...
What about Quantum Crisp? Or maybe The Big Crunch?
Oh, and for Harringk and any other creationists who might be hanging around here, do you deny the accuracy of carbon-14 dating?
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:42:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
I would love to see a conversation on this topic between yourself and someone with my point of view who was properly educated and able to debate on your level.
the point is anyone who is properly educated won't have your point of view. your point of view stems from ignorance. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:54:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote]Oh, and for Harringk and any other creationists who might be hanging around here, do you deny the accuracy of carbon-14 dating?
I was wondering if we were going to get around to this. I can't say I dismiss it out of hand, but I have run across people in my reading who seriously question the validity of it.
More homework for me, I'll post some crazy creationist propaganda and you can counter it. |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 19:13:09
|
why don't you just do some reading of more reliable sources and save us all the trouble? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 05:14:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote]Oh, and for Harringk and any other creationists who might be hanging around here, do you deny the accuracy of carbon-14 dating?
I was wondering if we were going to get around to this. I can't say I dismiss it out of hand, but I have run across people in my reading who seriously question the validity of it.
More homework for me, I'll post some crazy creationist propaganda and you can counter it.
Post the propaganda, I'll print it and use it for toilet paper...
Seriously though, I think a good number of people pick up these "popular science" books and read them and then quote them too much as fact when what most of them are, is personal opinion from a scientist with a bias, popular science on my side of the bias (Dawkins, Jay Gould and the like) makes interesting reading, it's nice sometimes to see science put in a accesible form for the masses but I would never automatically take them as fact, I prefer primary reading material with actual workable facts and hypothesis rather than opinionated literature that has taken primary sources and twisted it to the suit that fits them best.
This makes me frown
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 11:50:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
Post the propaganda, I'll print it and use it for toilet paper...
OUCH!! I hope you use 2-ply printer paper.
I got lazy last night and watched Kill Bill Vol. 2 instead of doing my homework. Excellent Movie! Classic Tarantino, very entertaining. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 12:08:23
|
I watched it last night also, uma thurmans feet are bloody horrible
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:08:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
please point out some holes in evolution, i'd love to read them.
1. how did the first single cell come to be?
2. why is there a lack/abundance of transitional fossils?
3. why did only one species evolve to be "top of the food chain"
edit - ie. we have no close competitors, why?
For the record: i am not a creationist or a nutcase, fucker.  |
Edited by - shineoftheever on 08/20/2004 13:15:10 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:26:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
1. how did the first single cell come to be?
2. why is there a lack/abundance of transitional fossils?
3. why did only one species evolve to be "top of the food chain"
edit - ie. we have no close competitors, why?
For the record: i am not a creationist or a nutcase, fucker.
1. Not an evolution question, but was adressed earlier in this thread.
2. There are many (for example the evolution of horses is very nicely documented in the fossil record). But, creationist always explain them away. For example, Acheopterxy (I can't spell) is dismissed as being too bird-like to be a transition.
3a We're not the "top of the food chain". A shark is quite capable of eating you.
3b If you believe there is top (I don't) there can only be one by definition.
3c How are you measuring success? There are more ants and beetles than humans. Other species are stronger and faster. ect. |
Edited by - darwin on 08/20/2004 13:52:11 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:28:27
|
um yeah I should finish off that cell shit... ok I'll do it now while I decide what film to watch..
I always thought that the best of the species was the bacteria. Or cockroaches. Or Brummies ()
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:48:54
|
Ebb, to use your quote that our knowledge of gravity (or anything) is flawed, but still it exists, then could you not argue that while the physical result is the same, it's quite likely that our understanding of its origins may be slightly or completely wrong (see: early atomic models).
So while gravity does exist, perhaps we only know part of the story.
While the world and life do exist, perhaps they are the result of a process we do not understand. So while it's great to theorize about the big bang because of some observable phenomena, it's still a theory based on observation, and a little bit of an intuitive guess. What makes this type of theory different from creationist theory? I'm not talking about people who disregard proven science, but general theorists.
Now there are some, particularly on the creationist side, who ignore the clues that we've found which completely discredits them (at least to me), but there are people who have non-traditional creationalist theories that do so in full light of and with the help of scientific evidence.
There are also those on the scientific side who believe too strongly in their own theories and refuse to let go, whatever evidence might be presented against it. Because they grow to believe in their theories just as creationists grow to believe in theirs.
Ideal science would dictate that we only draw conclusions from what we know, but in a field such as this, people take guesses that they find logical based on what they know (and don't). Guessing, even educated guessing, isn't scientific fact until it's been proven conclusively and indisputably. Up until that point, it's a hypothesis and a leap of faith. Sound like creationism a little?
Having said that, I am a scientist, and absolutely blind creationism doesn't really sit well with me, either. I'm just saying that not all creationists are blind, not all scientists are unbiased, and that from a hypothesis point-of-view, the two are much the same.
 "When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:56:59
|
thats why it's called the theory of evolution which I think a good many people choose not to notice
and it's true, watson and crick wouldn't be as famous as they is today if it weren't for a mathematical mistake, there were some crazy DNA models back then, woo did they look funny
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:38:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
1. Not an evolution question, but was adressed earlier in this thread.
2. There are many (for example the evolution of horses is very nicely documented in the fossil record). But, creationist always explain them away. For example, Acheopterxy (I can't spell) is dismissed as being too bird-like to be a transition.
3a We're not the "top of the food chain". A shark is quite capable of eating you.
3b If you believe there is top (I don't) there can only be one by definition.
3c How are you measuring success? There are more ants and beetles than humans. Other species are stronger and faster. ect.
1. not gonna bother reading the whole thread, what was the general gist of it?
2. as far as i know (no education, i'm a dummy ) they've only found a few (like 5) archeopteryx fossils. and i havn't even heard of any others. like a fish with partially formed legs for example.
3a. c'mon darwin, yes we are! we eat far more shark than they eat human. we have almost complete control over our environment.
3b. ya, i worded that pretty poorly, why don't we have any close competitor's? you would think that all life forms would want to gain that control.
3c. see 3a and 3b.
 "tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:43:40
|
shine,
1.top of this page hunny, I spent hours typing it, it's not finished yet, I've been busy
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:44:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
1. not gonna bother reading the whole thread, what was the general gist of it?
Pretty lame. You can spend your time reading if you really care. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:49:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
why don't you just do some reading of more reliable sources and save us all the trouble?
May I suggest
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution
by Douglas J. Futuyma |
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:00:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
1. not gonna bother reading the whole thread, what was the general gist of it?
Pretty lame. You can spend your time reading if you really care.
ya i read that. i thought you might be referring to something else. i should have said "i'm not reading the whole thread again because i couldn't find it the first two times through". could you please quote and highlight the part explaining the first single cell. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:04:43
|
I haven't finished it yet shine!
How many times do I have to tell people that!
It's not a sweeping the cell was made in x a way, it's a big fuvking thing and it's taking ages to type and I have had other things to do, I'll finish it in the next couple of hours 'cos I still haven't decided what film to watch yet.
Why am I being so fucking ignored on this stupid thread?
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:09:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
ya i read that. i thought you might be referring to something else. i should have said "i'm not reading the whole thread again because i couldn't find it the first two times through". could you please quote and highlight the part explaining the first single cell.
Here is a link:
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm
|
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:14:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
I haven't finished it yet shine!
How many times do I have to tell people that!
It's not a sweeping the cell was made in x a way, it's a big fuvking thing and it's taking ages to type and I have had other things to do, I'll finish it in the next couple of hours 'cos I still haven't decided what film to watch yet.
Why am I being so fucking ignored on this stupid thread?
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
sorry tre. i guess it won't work if you paraphrase, eh? get mad at darwin he said it was already covered. and i didn't see your last post before the above one.
"tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:19:00
|
Maybe but I've said it three times now, I'm trying to take the time and the effort to dumb this shit down as far as I can because I realise a lot of people won't understand the general concepts because they haven't studied it. I thought it would be better doing it this way than providing a link (not that I'm digging at darwin here), I thought it'd make it more accesible and stupidly I thought it might be interesting to some people too. But what do I know. I'm going to watch dawn of the dead now. And drink coffee. And put my notes and books away. I give in.
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:23:04
|
| thanks darwin, that's a lot of reading.......see why i didn't want to get involved. i've been working the whole time, it's tough flippng windows back and forth and trying to concentrate on both. |
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:26:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
I'm going to watch dawn of the dead now. And drink coffee.
enjoy the movie tre!
"tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 16:16:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
Why am I being so fucking ignored on this stupid thread?
It's because no-one likes you.
Say Hi to the zombies for me.
Kind regards,
Dr. Simon
Specialist In Broken Hearts |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
science is not magic or coincidence
