University of Kansas to Teach 'Intelligent Design' as Myth

[LOki]

LINK (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051122_id_myth.html)<blockquote>"Creationism is mythology,'' Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.''</blockquote>
Enjoy.

[bullypulpit]

Mythology, and not very good at that. Thanks for the link.

I'd rep you, but I gotta spread some joy first.

[diuretic]

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

Mirecki will have to take a number and get at the back of a very long queue (line) of ID proponents who are well in front of him as examples of figures of ridicule. No doubt Mr Calvert has taken his number already, personally I'd give him 666 but that's because I'm a sardonic prick.

[glockmail]

.... personally I'd give him 666 ..... You appear to be a superstitious fellow.

[diuretic]

You appear to be a superstitious fellow.

I do? And there I was thinking it was wry humour. I need a good American editor, I was told that certain humour doesn't travel well. Are those writer folks still on strike or do you think I can get one to help me out?

[glockmail]

I do? And there I was thinking it was wry humour. I need a good American editor, I was told that certain humour doesn't travel well. Are those writer folks still on strike or do you think I can get one to help me out?
Perhaps it is I who needs an Austrailian editor.

[diuretic]

Perhaps it is I who needs an Austrailian editor.

Why would you think that?

[glockmail]

Why would you think that? There I was thinking that I was creating subtle humor.

[Hagbard Celine]

LINK (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051122_id_myth.html)<blockquote>"Creationism is mythology,'' Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.''</blockquote>
Enjoy.

These idiots make my blood boil. They subvert scientific education in order to further their ignorant religious agenda and they continue to pretend that I.D. is something other than mythology after countless scientists and atleast one state supreme court ruling has proven that it is nothing but. This PBS doc on the Dover I.D. trial is illuminating.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8944

[darin]

These idiots make my blood boil. They subvert scientific education in order to further their ignorant religious agenda and they continue to pretend that I.D. is something other than mythology after countless scientists and atleast one state supreme court ruling has proven that it is nothing but. This PBS doc on the Dover I.D. trial is illuminating.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=8944

What makes ID 'mythology' in your mind is your fear of truth. :)

You are pre-disposed against ID - against God - it makes every conclusion you reach, suspect at best.

[April15]

LINK (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051122_id_myth.html)<blockquote>"Creationism is mythology,'' Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.''</blockquote>
Enjoy.
George Bush pretty much blows the whole theory anyway!

[Hagbard Celine]

What makes ID 'mythology' in your mind is your fear of truth. :)

You are pre-disposed against ID - against God - it makes every conclusion you reach, suspect at best.

It doesn't have anything to do with me dmp--other than the fact that when I form an opinion I like to base it on fact. What makes I.D. mythology is that it simply ISN'T science. It's a loose association of philosophical arguments--bad ones at that--whose principle foundation (that a creator created everything) can't be tested. Testing hypotheticals is THE most important part of the scientific process. That's the whole point of science. To test hypotheticals and hold on to the ones that test well in order to build a theory.
The supernatural isn't real. SO IT CAN'T BE TESTED THEREFORE IT ISN'T SCIENCE. Nevermind the fact that all of its key tenets, including irreducible complexity, have been flatly and summarily refuted by nearly every scientist out there. I.D. is nothing more than creationism with a flashy name. This too is proven. The I.D. movement is a joke and has been proven to be a joke over and over and over again. It's almost not even worth discussing, but since the level of ignorance on the subject seems to be so astoundingly high, I can't help but to atleast try to set some of the facts straight out of adherence to my own conscience.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[darin]

What makes it mythology is that it ISN'T science. It's a loose association of philosophical arguments--bad ones at that--whose principle foundation (that a creator created everything) can't be tested. Testing hypotheticals is THE most important part of the scientific process. That's the whole point of science. To test hypotheticals and hold on to the ones that test well in order to build a theory.
The supernatural isn't real. SO IT CAN'T BE TESTED THEREFORE IT ISN'T SCIENCE. Nevermind the fact that all of its key tenets, including irreducible complexity, have been flatly and summarily refuted by nearly every scientist out there. I.D. is nothing more than creationism with a flashy name. This too is proven. The I.D. movement is a joke and has been proven to be a joke over and over and over again. It's almost not even worth discussing, but since the level of ignorance on the subject seems to be so astoundingly high, I can't help but to atleast try to set some of the facts straight out of adherence to my own conscience.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html


You're wrong. It's science. It's truth. It makes 5000000 times more sense than your view on how things got here, and got how they are. I don't EXPECT you to get it though.

[Hagbard Celine]

You're wrong. It's science. It's truth. It makes 5000000 times more sense than your view on how things got here, and got how they are. I don't EXPECT you to get it though.

No dmp. It isn't science. You're DEAD wrong. See, scientific hypotheses must be tested in order to be made into theories. Since you can't test the "creator," and since there's no evidence to support said creator to begin with, the idea falls flat. It's got no basis in reality. You're so-called "scientific" theory is based on the 2000-year-old creation myth of nomadic goat herders and the finer points of it have been gleamed from René Descartes' philosophical watchmaker argument. The whole of all physical evidence: biological, fossil and even genetic points to evolution. The case is closed dmp. Humans shared a common ancestor with apes. It's a fact Jack.

[glockmail]

George Bush pretty much blows the whole theory anyway! And who do you blow? Mike Moore? :finger3:

[darin]

Humans shared a common ancestor with apes. It's a fact Jack.


Yet it's a fact which you cannot prove. You can't test for it. You can't observe it. All 'your camp' has is rudimentary bone fragments and a hope there is no God.

[Hagbard Celine]

Yet it's a fact which you cannot prove. You can't test for it. You can't observe it. All 'your camp' has is rudimentary bone fragments and a hope there is no God.

Nope, actually evolution is supported at the genetic level. Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. And number 2 in humans is fused. It has twice the number of telomeres (end pieces). It has a set in the center, when all other chromosomes have telomeres at their ends. Every discovery that's ever been made has supported Darwin's theory.http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html
And there are much more than "bone fragments" as you called them. The fossil record is quite extent. Fossils from hundreds, if not thousands of now-extinct species have been discovered. Many of them are so-called developmental bridge or "link" species that show the links between land and sea animals for instance. Denial of the facts will get you nowhere dmp.
This isn't an issue of "camps" dmp. It's an issue of fact and inexplicable denial.

[darin]

Nope, actually evolution is supported at the genetic level. Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. And number 2 in humans is fused. It has twice the number of telomeres (end pieces). It has a set in the center, when all other chromosomes have telomeres at their ends. Every discovery that's ever been made has supported Darwin's theory.http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html
And there are much more than "bone fragments" as you called them. The fossil record is quite extent. Fossils from hundreds, if not thousands of now-extinct species have been discovered. Many of them are so-called developmental bridge or "link" species that show the links between land and sea animals for instance. Denial of the facts will get you nowhere dmp.
This isn't an issue of "camps" dmp. It's an issue of fact and inexplicable denial.

I'm sorry for your loss. My condolences to your 'reason'. :)

[Hobbit]

Nope, actually evolution is supported at the genetic level. Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. And number 2 in humans is fused. It has twice the number of telomeres (end pieces). It has a set in the center, when all other chromosomes have telomeres at their ends. Every discovery that's ever been made has supported Darwin's theory.http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html
And there are much more than "bone fragments" as you called them. The fossil record is quite extent. Fossils from hundreds, if not thousands of now-extinct species have been discovered. Many of them are so-called developmental bridge or "link" species that show the links between land and sea animals for instance. Denial of the facts will get you nowhere dmp.
This isn't an issue of "camps" dmp. It's an issue of fact and inexplicable denial.

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'

[darin]

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'


http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

[Hagbard Celine]

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'
Well, DVDs DID evolve from CDs so you'd be correct to assume things that look similar are related. The technology that gave us CDs advanced into a way to transfer video as well as sound onto a compact disc! However, science is about making a hypothesis based on observable data (in this case that things look similar) and then testing that hypothesis. Darwin's hypothesis keeps withstanding test after test after test. Nothing that has been discovered has refuted Darwin's hypothesis. Nothing. That's why I gave the genetic example. Darwin's theory posits that Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor. The fields of genetics and chemistry back this up as well as the fossil record. Not the least of which is archyopteryx, the dino-bird you mentioned. Horse evolution is particularly well documented. As is the evolution of the large sea mammals. I really wish some of you would watch this doc on the Dover I.D. trial. It's particularly instructive about the theory of evolution and I think it would dispell many of the myths that are currently propagated by the I.D. crowd these days such as the myth that animals appear in the fossil record spontaneously or that bio-structures are too complex to function missing any of their parts as well as clearing things up for you all about what evolution really is. I'm pretty sure most of you are still confused on most parts of the theory. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Yes, evolution is testable. We can test genetic codes to look for similarities. We can compare fossils. We can see in reproduction that spontaneous mutation can cause physical transformations. It's even plausible to reproduce the same strain of bacteria over and over again for generations to determine if it ever changes. I don't know if that test has ever been done, but the point is that it CAN be tested. Your "creator" isn't testable. He hasn't shown up to any lab and plopped down on the examination table as far as I know anyway. :dunno:
It seems somewhat more implausible that an all-powerful creator who left no trace of its existence and no way to prove its existence created everything than it does to attribute the existence of life to natural processes. Yes, biological systems are complex, but they didn't spring into being in their complete form. They built on themselves over time to become complex. It isn't rocket science. Human technology didn't spring into being. It began as sticks and stones. Why would biological systems be any different? I wish you'd explain which part of the theory "makes little sense" to you. Because quite frankly, coming from someone who believes in supernatural forces that are supported by absolutely zero quantifiable evidence, it sounds pretty damn silly.

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

This is sad.

[darin]

Hag - you have more Faith than anyone I know. Your Faith in your theories is commendable.

[Hagbard Celine]

Hag - you have more Faith than anyone I know. Your Faith in your theories is commendable.

"Faith?" Does it take faith to know that sky is blue? Hey, when something makes perfect sense and is supported with mountains of physically observable data, it's pretty difficult for most people to dismiss it. Kudos for being in the 1 percentile! :thumb:

[glockmail]

....
As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. .... Well said. :clap:

[Hagbard Celine]

Well said. :clap:

Christ. It's like the blind leading the blind around here. None of you even understand the most basic parts of evolution theory yet you're slapping each other on the back for making the most mundane "observations" possible. :rolleyes: :lol:

[April15]

And who do you blow? Mike Moore? :finger3:I would hate to put you out of work! Now back to some substance or funnys.

[glockmail]

Christ. It's like the blind leading the blind around here. None of you even understand the most basic parts of evolution theory yet you're slapping each other on the back for making the most mundane "observations" possible. :rolleyes: :lol: What's so hard to understand? Your faith that there is no God is clouding your judgement.

[glockmail]

I would hate to put you out of work! Now back to some substance or funnys.Your's was neither.

[diuretic]

There I was thinking that I was creating subtle humor.

Indeed you were. Don't mind me, I can be very dense at times :laugh2:

[diuretic]

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'

You do know that a CD and a DVD are inanimate objects don't you? I mean as in they are not alive? That they are both made in factories by machines directed by humans.

That's why you get confused, you don't understand basic scientific principles. That's the reason. Did you go to fundie camp instead of school or something?

[Gaffer]

We are not around long enough to observe actual changes in nature such as watching a particular animal change its shape actions. Such changes take longer than mankind has been around. But we can see evolution on a microscopic level. A virus for example. If a virus can't affect you because of your immune system it will mutate or evolve into something that can affect you. It can also evolve to defend itself against antibodies.

The medical community wasn't worried about the bird flu. They were worried about it mutating into something that could infect humans. It's an evolutionary thing.If a virus can change itself to adjust to new conditions a larger animal can as well. It just takes more time. If it can't evolve it will die off as a species.

[Hagbard Celine]

What's so hard to understand? Your faith that there is no God is clouding your judgement.

Oh no. I understand perfectly. It's you guys who lack a basic understanding of evolution theory. You've been reading too much "Answersingenesis.com" and as a result you have zero understanding of simple scientific principles. :lame2:

[glockmail]

Oh no. I understand perfectly. It's you guys who lack a basic understanding of evolution theory. You've been reading too much "Answersingenesis.com" and as a result you have zero understanding of simple scientific principles. :lame2:As a well educated practical scientist with decades of experience I assure you that you are wrong. What does that say about your reasoning skills?

[Hagbard Celine]

As a well educated practical scientist with decades of experience I assure you that you are wrong. What does that say about your reasoning skills?

Well, if I'm wrong how do you explain your astounding ignorance of evolutionary theory? :poke:

[April15]

As a well educated practical scientist with decades of experience I assure you that you are wrong. What does that say about your reasoning skills?Are those like the assurances a certain president gives? What field is a practical scientist in? Is that like a person fascinated by elements or what?

[glockmail]

Well, if I'm wrong how do you explain your astounding ignorance of evolutionary theory? :poke: I understand it. I just don't happen to agree with it.

Everyone that disagrees with you isn't automatically stupid or ignorant. :poke:

[glockmail]

Are those like the assurances a certain president gives? What field is a practical scientist in? Is that like a person fascinated by elements or what? What's with your fascination with GWB? Is it that he's better educated than you are?

[bullypulpit]

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'

Firstly, CD's and DVD's didn't "evolve" through natural selection as they are INANIMATE OBJECTS. As to evolution being testable...We need look no further than the Galapagos Islands...A living, breathing evolutionary laboratory where evolutionary changes can be found dating back to when the first plants and animals were washed up on, of blown onto, their shores. Finches, iguanas, tortises and other species, while similar to their mainland cousins, have evolved survival traits unique to the islands.

[Hobbit]

Firstly, CD's and DVD's didn't "evolve" through natural selection as they are INANIMATE OBJECTS. As to evolution being testable...We need look no further than the Galapagos Islands...A living, breathing evolutionary laboratory where evolutionary changes can be found dating back to when the first plants and animals were washed up on, of blown onto, their shores. Finches, iguanas, tortises and other species, while similar to their mainland cousins, have evolved survival traits unique to the islands.

Can you point to an observed emergence of an independent species or entirely new trait appearing within a species? Or is it all just assumed, the way the rest of evolution is?

[April15]

Can you point to an observed emergence of an independent species or entirely new trait appearing within a species? Or is it all just assumed, the way the rest of evolution is?
A trait that has been emerging for about 50 years in humans is the asshole has migrated up the intestinal tract all the way to the 3 pound gem and has started to digest it.

[diuretic]

A trait that has been emerging for about 50 years in humans is the asshole has migrated up the intestinal tract all the way to the 3 pound gem and has started to digest it.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

You're wrong. It's science. It's truth. It makes 5000000 times more sense than your view on how things got here, and got how they are. I don't EXPECT you to get it though.

The Jewish creation myth is as firmly grounded in ignorance and superstition as all of the other creation myths from that time period. Any belief to the contrary is wishful thinking.

[manu1959]

evolution did not create life.......evolution occurred after life was created......for something must first exist in order to evolve.....

the moment of creation from nothing must occur at some point.....

the real issue is who or what was the creator of the original moment.....from where did who or what come from and where did they get the original ingredients.....

different groups have different "stories"...no ones can be proved which is why there are different ones .....

[Kathianne]

evolution did not create life.......evolution occurred after life was created......for something must first exist in order to evolve.....

the moment of creation from nothing must occur at some point.....

the real issue is who or what was the creator of the original moment.....from where did who or what come from and where did they get the original ingredients.....

different groups have different "stories"...no ones can be proved which is why there are different ones .....

You've encapsulated my belief system. Today I'm an 'evolutionist', though it's certainly possible that something may come along and change that. Problem for the 'scientists' amongst us, I think there was a Creator. TMWOT Genesis is a story made to explain the beginning, like many other creation stories.

I do not hold the scientific theory of evolution in conflict with the philosophical theory of ID in conflict. If I was writing curriculum today, evolution would be in science, ID in theology/philosophy. ID doesn't meet the scientific method bar, which does not negate the possibility of truth.

[manu1959]

You've encapsulated my belief system. Today I'm an 'evolutionist', though it's certainly possible that something may come along and change that. Problem for the 'scientists' amongst us, I think there was a Creator. TMWOT Genesis is a story made to explain the beginning, like many other creation stories.

I do not hold the scientific theory of evolution in conflict with the philosophical theory of ID in conflict. If I was writing curriculum today, evolution would be in science, ID in theology/philosophy. ID doesn't meet the scientific method bar, which does not negate the possibility of truth.

i agree and if they taught a theology class in public schools then we would have children and young that would have all sides of the debate and could make informed decissions rather than ones based in fear......

[Kathianne]

i agree and if they taught a theology class in public schools then we would have children and young that would have all sides of the debate and could make informed decissions rather than ones based in fear......

I agree. Bottom line from my knowledge, ID falls way short of 'scientific method' as currently described. Evolution has way more to 'back it up', yet there are gaping holes. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just lots of blanks. On the other hand, ID probably will always fall short on the scientific method parameter.

That doesn't negate the likelihood of a Creator, just once again is a nod to the possibility that there is something greater than man's ability to know. I haven't a problem giving a nod to that.

[manu1959]

I agree. Bottom line from my knowledge, ID falls way short of 'scientific method' as currently described. Evolution has way more to 'back it up', yet there are gaping holes. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just lots of blanks. On the other hand, ID probably will always fall short on the scientific method parameter.

That doesn't negate the likelihood of a Creator, just once again is a nod to the possibility that there is something greater than man's ability to know. I haven't a problem giving a nod to that.

in 47 years i have learned one thing for sure.....

anyone that claims to have all the answers almost never does......

[diuretic]

in 47 years i have learned one thing for sure.....

anyone that claims to have all the answers almost never does......

And if we knew all the answers life would have no mystery. I may be a bit overly rational at times but if mystery disappeared it would be a lesser existence.

[manu1959]

And if we knew all the answers life would have no mystery. I may be a bit overly rational at times but if mystery disappeared it would be a lesser existence.

mystery and surprise makes the day worth living.....

remember when...

the earth was flat.....

black holes didn't exist.....

the atom was the smallest particle....

farrah fawcet was hot.....

:laugh2:

[diuretic]

mystery and surprise makes the day worth living.....

remember when...

the earth was flat.....

black holes didn't exist.....

the atom was the smallest particle....

farrah fawcet was hot.....

:laugh2:


*sigh* I never did get one of those posters.......:coffee: