Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on June 19, 2005, 10:09:28 pm
-
...is LIGHT. :cool:
A major weakness of Intelligent Design, compared to Darwinian evolution, is that it does not propose a method by which the "designer" designed the universe or parts of the universe. Well, this article (http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID4859|CHID5|CIID2039888,00.html) proposes a very simple and intuitive explanation: via light, or electromagnetic energy.
(Be forewarned... the article uses a lot of combative language, particularly repeating the phrase "athiestic evolutionists" several times. A commentary on the article, with edits and elaborations, can be found here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44847).)
Here are some quotes:
...Intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.
...According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the 'special' characteristics of Light, photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe. They do not have mass, they do not occupy volume of space, and they are not involved in the flow of time; therefore, Light maintains non-material characteristics, once again indicating its nature as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.
These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule.
No flaming please, on pain of monkeyage. ;)
-
Finally someone says something innovative from the other side of the argument.
With myself being a religious person I have to say:
Go god :)
Basically a synopsis of the article:
In the Bible we are told that God created the universe out of nothingness through Light, and I believe other religions hold somewhat similar views. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists who now must acknowledge that physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space, and no matter) and at a singularity Light, a fair non-technical name for the full spectrum of photons of electromagnetic radiation, came into existence. This intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.
-
Doesn't seem like much of a mechanism to me. It's missing the basic control - how is god controlling this light?
-
reality doesn not exist :D
-
It's easy to insert the "spiritual world" into any missing parts of a system we don't yet fully understand.
-
Since I beleive in God but I'm a realist as well I choose to beleive that evolution did happen but that god played a part in it sort of like a director. By making small changes here and there in an animals design that way God could direct the world the way he or she wanted without getting directly involved.
Youv'e done something right when noone can tell youv'e done anything at all.
-
Nothing special.
It doesn't add anything new to the argument, simply dresses up science with God tacked on in a few places and mixes it up with a bit of quasi mysticism by talking about Light's ability to "bridge the physical and spiritual worlds". The essence of science is pretty much Occams Razor, and in this case, it can be applied neatly. We don't need God to be he controlling mechanism behind these things, thus we can eliminate him from the picture when trying to understand stuff like this. Therefore, this isn't any kind of proof of existence, nor is it reaqlly anything new for the intelligent design camp.
Plus there are problems with the science.
When God decides the time is right to create biological life He commands that His Will be done and sends messengers of Light from the spiritual existence to the physical universe instructing the necessary molecular forms He had already created to join together in the new, more complex relationship of simple biological life. These simple biological life forms are then made up of the even simpler material forms, the atoms and molecules, from the surrounding environment which are instructed by photons of light energy from a DNA type molecule to form themselves into the new, more complex relationship of biological life.
Beginning with the first simple forms of biological life which God had already created He now only has to send messages by Light from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the physical world commanding that His Will be carried out and that all the necessary more complex forms of plant and animal life must come to be.
That doesn't make any sense. Light very rarely triggers chemical reactions - there's not enough loose energy to do the kinds of things needed to form complex molecules. Where it does trigger chemical changes, it's typically destructive (UV energy breaking down organic molecules for example).
These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule.
That's just straight up not correct. While it's true that high energy EM waves can ionize cellular particles and in turn alter DNA to cause cancers, or, conceivably, alter the DNA of gametes leading to transferrable mutations, it's not the primary cause of evolution - copying errors are.
There's a lot of other stuff dodgy about the article too. For one, it's anonymous. If he was serious about trying to get this scientifically accepted, he would be acknowledged so he can be questioned - anonymity means he never has to defend the holes in his arguments. Moreover, when was the last time you read a paper in Science or Nature where, in the first paragraph, he author was tring to score emotional points by telling his readers that he's dying of cancer?
Finally, it's got almost nothing to do with evolution. It's cosmology, trying to masquerade as biological science, something which occurs a lot in Science vs. creationism debate, probably because the creationists have a unified belief which covers the creation of everything, wheras the evolutionists typically limit themselves to evolution and leave the creation of the earth to the geologists/astrophysicists, and the creation of the universe to the cosmologists.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
Since I beleive in God but I'm a realist as well I choose to beleive that evolution did happen but that god played a part in it sort of like a director. By making small changes here and there in an animals design that way God could direct the world the way he or she wanted without getting directly involved.
Not a critic or nothing, just a genuine question: then, why do you need a god in the picture?
-
To answer "Why are we here" rather than "How are we here" would be my guess. That's the reason why most people who are religious but yet still accept evolution still continue to believe in God.
Personally I think that the question is nonsensical since it makes a basic assumption that there must be a reason when there is no reason to believe there must be one.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
To answer "Why are we here" rather than "How are we here" would be my guess. That's the reason why most people who are religious but yet still accept evolution still continue to believe in God.
Personally I think that the question is nonsensical since it makes a basic assumption that there must be a reason when there is no reason to believe there must be one.
sometimes people ask stupid questions :D
i dont know his actual words, but confucious once said something about not attempting to understand the spiritual world. that it was unwise to try and understand something that we cannot learn anything about. it is best to live a virtuous life now, and face the afterdeath when that time comes.
-
ok, you want to play in the world of science, before you do anything you have to prove God exsists scientificly. good luck with that.
even if you were to prove that light could have some effect on the structure of matter you still haven't proved the 'Intelligent' or 'Design' of your 'theory', and the fact that this is always side steped is why no one takes ID as science. how does God controle light? you can't answer that because you don't have God in a scientific realm, he's out in magic land. oh, and congradulations on finding Quantum physics, I've been saying for years it's were you should be focusing your energy, it's got parts of it that are nearly as BS as ID.
there is no "spiritual world" in science.
-
*watches Nuke's point fly over Bob's head and shatter on the wall*
In simpler terms: You are attempting to understand that which cannot be understood. Stop.
-
Let's face it, there are always going to be people who go with Religeon, and those who go without, as a consequence, we're always going to have insecure morons who believe simply - "My way is good, theirs is bad...i think i might go tell them so."
...truly, the only happiness, whether Spiritual or...Scienmatifical (seriously, us Athiests really need a cool word like 'Spiritual' to describe ourselves), can only be found in Acceptance of others...
...you see, we have to accept other people for who and what they are, for example, here's a statement that may anger you; I'm the Lord Jesus Christ, i think i'm gonna get drunk and beat up some Midgets. Now, you should accept the fact that i'm a politically incorrect, alcoholic moron, then, we can ALL be happy :D ...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
(seriously, us Athiests really need a cool word like 'Spiritual' to describe ourselves)
"reality"
-
Rationalists. The Greek already said it all.
-
you know there's a group of folks, that agree with the intelegent design 'theory', that there is a super powerful force of creation, that made all there is in the world. there called the raelians, and the only diference (and from the way creationist describe ID a minor one) is that it was space aliens that created the world, not God. this is the exact same theory as Intelligent Design because ID is very carefull not to say God anyware (because they want it taught in schools, and they got bitch slaped last time they tried teaching God based creationism in schools) so if you want to prove ID you'r going to have to stand with these people and say, for the most part they've got the right idea, you just disagree with one minor detail.
-
Sorry Goober, but I can't respect a "supposedly scientific" article (even if you did warn about it) when it starts with the sentence:
I am sending you this information in hopes that you can find some way to use it in the battle against the atheistic, Darwinian concept of evolution which has destroyed so much of the original spiritual nature of human society, and help to bring the attention of the people of the world back to the increasingly obvious fact that God created this universe and everything in it.
-
yeah, science is about finding the truth, not winning a political/socal battle.
-
The logic behind it seems to me, to be 'God controls light', and that's about it.
I don't see how that can be considered testable in any way; especially as God by nature represents an intangible concept (which is an innate part of faith).
Even if all this supposed mechanisms of control by light were proven - and AFAIK there's no evidence presented - it doesn't entail a guiding hand in the design.
NB: WorldNetDaily; biased. Think it's worth noting that it has an inherent interest in supporting any theory purporting creationist arguements, given its association with various Christian (i.e. pro-creationist, i.e. inclined to bias) magazines and websites.
-
Looks like yet another sensitive misinterpreting their Starborn in the Sun dream again.
Oh well at least this one didn't open a knossos to shivan space. :)
-
Originally posted by Nico
Not a critic or nothing, just a genuine question: then, why do you need a god in the picture?
It's just a theory I made for myself since I choose to beleive there is a god but I also don't want hold myself back by beleiving in god. Realy I think religion was just someting to satisfy our fear of the unknown up until lately.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
sometimes people ask stupid questions :D
i dont know his actual words, but confucious once said something about not attempting to understand the spiritual world. that it was unwise to try and understand something that we cannot learn anything about. it is best to live a virtuous life now, and face the afterdeath when that time comes.
Melville makes the same point through the tragedy of Ahab's obsession with the white whale; the "pasteboard mask" is not something we can simply tear down. It's the age-old debate between the Platonic and the Aristotelian, the former asserting that matter is coarse, indirect immitation of the Forms, the latter arguing that there is no reason to believe that things aren't simply what they are. (I personally think Confucious was the prison b!tch of China's social norms.)
It's human nature to romanticize our surroundings, applying mystery and hidden purpose to what logic suggests is an orderless existence, save the laws of physics. Even the most existential among us still have the inescapable need for some form of order, even if we are consciously aware that the order is imaginary. No one's mind can survive in constant, stark reality. (Yes, that includes nihilists.:)) Bouts with meaninglessness must be periodical.
-
What a bunch of bull****.
The science meme-juggernaut will consume your foolish notions! :p
-
Originally posted by Nuke
sometimes people ask stupid questions :D
i dont know his actual words, but confucious once said something about not attempting to understand the spiritual world. that it was unwise to try and understand something that we cannot learn anything about. it is best to live a virtuous life now, and face the afterdeath when that time comes.
Actually, Confucius didn't say much, he was just some politician, and for some reasons all these sayings were applied to him. Anyway that dude or the others who saifd that kind of stuff did not know better than me about the Great Truth of Life or crap like that. Wtf, when it's not the bible, it's confucius? Who's next, Nostradamus?
Ok, jokes aside, saying there's no use not trying to uinderstand what we supposedly can't understand, that's probably what prehistorical men must have said to those who were trying to understand fire and thought it was some evil spirit that would eat everything alive.
Spiritual World my ass :p
-
Religion is for spiritual guidance.
Science is for observing what is happening, why it happens and how it happens.
The two can coexist very well, because they deal with completely different matters. Trying to add religious elements into science is complete BS.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
...you see, we have to accept other people for who and what they are, for example, here's a statement that may anger you; I'm the Lord Jesus Christ, i think i'm gonna get drunk and beat up some Midgets. Now, you should accept the fact that i'm a politically incorrect, alcoholic moron, then, we can ALL be happy :D ...
What was that all about?:wtf:
Was this "example" really needed? for if it was, I don't get it...:confused:
On antoehr note, science and religion not only can coexist, but they can allso complement eachother - for instance, more and more events from the bible are proven to have happened (one way or antoher)...
But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
On antoehr note, science and religion not only can coexist, but they can allso complement eachother - for instance, more and more events from the bible are proven to have happened (one way or antoher)...
But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.
Well, most people would say that many events of the Bible happened, but the question is whether they were actual spiritual events (i.e. as depicted in the bible) or ones which, over decades of oral storytelling, became regarded as spiritual.
Like severe flooding of an area in the holy land becoming the story of Noahs Ark, or Neros persecution of the early Christians becoming the subtext for Revelations.
So it's scarcely a surprise in that sense. I think the point you note is relevant, because these things are very much in the eye of the beholder; shaped by belief and faith. But I think the clash between science and religion is that religion requires a person to see through believers eyes; it's all about faith, unblinking acceptance and belief (although that doesn't prevent exploration of said faith and the conflicts within and without of it).
Whereas science requires a neutral eye; one which has no belief to predispose its judgement. I don't think the difference is irreconcilable, but there are individuals for whom it is.
The problem with creationism, I think, is that it assumes the explanation before it can prove it. It starts off with a conclusion and tries to find evidence; not only is that the opposite of proper science, it's doubly dangerous as the consequences of not finding said evidence will harm that persons deeply held faith. So they twist what they see, and it's not science any more; it's faith. And never the twain shall meet.
-
^
Tell that to Milliken
:D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.
If god is unprovable, then it is necessarily impossible to prove that god caused any event to occur.
-
Of course you can prove god exists.
It's actually a wonderful thing...
It's been proven scientifically that in many people the action of praying starts a series of chemical reactions in the brain that will release serotonine and dopamine (the chemical names might be slightly different, english as 3rd language here), so making the prayer feel "better".
That's where god is for science.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem with creationism, I think, is that it assumes the explanation before it can prove it. It starts off with a conclusion and tries to find evidence; not only is that the opposite of proper science, it's doubly dangerous as the consequences of not finding said evidence will harm that persons deeply held faith. So they twist what they see, and it's not science any more; it's faith.
This is very true. :nod:
-
Not, that very false:
Originally posted by aldo_14
it's doubly dangerous as the consequences of not finding said evidence will harm that persons deeply held faith.
-> I've never seen any logical explanation harming a creationist faith. They'll say it's bull and ignore you.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Not, that very false:
-> I've never seen any logical explanation harming a creationist faith. They'll say it's bull and ignore you.
That's exactly what i mean; if they find said evidence themselves, then they'll change it to fit their conclusion, because they're searching for something to support their beliefs, not to actually explore the science of subject x.
-
I'm a christian, yet I'm alls oa man of science. This has never hinder me, quite the contrary. I find by understanding the universe better, I can get a glimpse into God's brilliance...
Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.
There speaks a man who knows not what those theories are...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm a christian, yet I'm alls oa man of science. This has never hinder me, quite the contrary. I find by understanding the universe better, I can get a glimpse into God's brilliance...
Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.
Creationism tries to be science. It isn't. It's unscientific. It tries to bunk real, logical and true science (usually evolutionary science) with some wild and usually just plain wrong accusations.
Also, I am curious about this "theories that try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull". Care to elaborate?
-
God in my opinion is everything around us, god is the universe thats what I see to be and you must remember the story of creation was written thousands of years ago by moses.
He needed an idea by which to lead the Isrealites and they expected him to explain everything, so what did you expect him to do explain the entire universe to the people back then or would It be easier to present the image that god was a human to the people and he put us here. We were put here by everything around us thus God is everything around us.
I need to learn how to write more fluent documents I feel like i skipped around a bit.
In my opinion though Intelligent design is bullsh**.:D
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
There speaks a man who knows not what those theories are...
Now I object to that. There were plenty of great scientists who were also devout Christians. Newton, for example. And Maxwell, Pascal, Kepler, Herschel, Galileo, and Copernicus (yes, those two also). Not to mention Sir Francis Bacon, the guy who introduced the scientific method. Even Einstein, hardly devout, said that there must be a God.
-
He didn't say that religious men know nothing of science. he said Trashman knows nothing of the theories.
-
"Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it"
science, isn't in the busyness of proveing or disproveing anythinig, in science, everything is a model that seems to work, as long as you stick to the rules of the model (for instance, the Newtonian physics model works so long as you'r bigger than an atom smaller than a star and moveing signifigantly slower than the speed of light). however, all scientific theoreys can be disproven, the rules are very clear for any theory, and if you find an instance, when the rules fail to produce the predicted outcome to within the degree of acuracy the theory claimes, it's wrong, and you just won yourself a nobel prize and a million dollars (or what ever the prize is now). if science can't find a way to break it (not nesisaraly to actualy break it, but if there is some set of variables that if found would prove it wrong), then it isn't science it's faith (it's that whole 'testable' 'reproducable' thing). now evolution is very much accepted, and ingrained, it would take a signifigant find to even bring up the posability of questioning it, but, if we found some imposable fossil, or if there was some life form we found that couldn't be linked to any other organism on the planet, and it could some how be proven not a hoax, or just an annomaly, then it would force a re-evaluation of the theory.
but above all else, creationism is not science, because creationism says: "God made the earth in six days out of mud from a river, and I'm going to prove that is what happened" while evolution says: "these animals look very similar, it might be posable that they came from a common animal that split off into two seperate animals, I should look more into this, maybe find the history of these animals, or watch them now and see if they change any further, and see if I'm right, and if I'm wrong, well I guess I'll just have to find some other explaination".
Science does not assume it's right, it in fact assumes that it's wrong, and then tries to test it's assumption.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Now I object to that. There were plenty of great scientists who were also devout Christians. Newton, for example. And Maxwell, Pascal, Kepler, Herschel, Galileo, and Copernicus (yes, those two also). Not to mention Sir Francis Bacon, the guy who introduced the scientific method. Even Einstein, hardly devout, said that there must be a God.
Originally posted by Raa
He didn't say that religious men know nothing of science. he said Trashman knows nothing of the theories.
Exactly. I've got no problem with Christian scientists, but Trashman said that the theories underpinning modern cosmology were pathetic, which he would know isn't true if he'd spent any time at all looking into those theories (though I predict that at any moment he'll come back with a story about how he discussed them long and hard with his ever present physics professor).
-
"Oh, if only he had joined a mainstream Religeon, like Oprahism, or Voodoo" - Professor Hubert Farnsworth
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
*watches Nuke's point fly over Bob's head and shatter on the wall*
In simpler terms: You are attempting to understand that which cannot be understood. Stop.
yea that happens alot. really i think if people understood half the **** i say there would be alot more suicides in this workld :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm a christian, yet I'm alls oa man of science. This has never hinder me, quite the contrary. I find by understanding the universe better, I can get a glimpse into God's brilliance...
Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.
I'd point out that they've been able to observe up to the first few nano-seconds after the Big Bang by analysing cosmic background radiation, so they're getting there in terms of explanation.
Albeit it's equally possible the beginning of existence will be forever inexplicable; that doesn't entail there must be an omnipresent creator anyways, which is why arguing about scientific validation is essentially pointless. Science is not about whether or not God made the universe, after all, but what we can derive from what we observe in evidence.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.
Didn't you just contradict yourself there ?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Even Einstein, hardly devout, said that there must be a God.
Yes, but he lied. Check his treaties about science and religion to see what he was really thinking. Same deal for presidents. I suppose a US president must claim he believes firmly in god and, additionally, I'm pretty sure he must like baseball (that may sound stupid, but I'm sure that's true. If you don't get the idea I'm heading to, it means you're too dense :p), and other selected things like that. A completly atheistic Einstein working in the States would not have been as convincing to his colleagues, back then. That's all there is to it, imho.
-
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm / http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
That what you mean?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Even Einstein, hardly devout, said that there must be a God.
And then wasted the last three decades of his life trying to disprove quantum physics precisely because of that.
If anything Einstein is one of the greatest examples of the inherent danger in approaching science from the perspective of trying to show how God ran the universe.
His famous "God does not play dice with the universe" quote was a quick way of stating his dissatisfaction with the randomness of quantum physics. Einstein believed that it was possible to understand the entire universe in a way that QP prevents.
The problem was that Einstein had abandoned the scientific method by that point. He'd decided that the universe must be understandable because that was the only way God could create the universe. Had he approached things with a proper scientific approach he might have not spent 30 years working on a flawed theory of everything.
(More info here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/einstein_symphony_prog_summary.shtml) for anyone who wants it).
-
I'm a Roman Catholic, and I got shoved into a Catholic highschool.
Yet in my Biology class we spent several weeks studying Darwin and evolution. In the Theology class I was forced to take they didn't teach us the world was created in 6 days, or that Noah sailed around the world. Heck...told us that Jesus was born in a cave in late spring, and that whether or not he actually performed whatever miracles he did didn't matter (was a lot of symbolism). Science and religion are pretty seperate to me, but they rarely contradict each other because people seem to be able to modify their interpretations of the Bible according to science.
-
^^ Bingo. Science and religion don't have to conflict.
-
Hmph, I'd forgotten so many HLP'ers were superstitious.
Dance, monkeys!
-
my conclusion:
religion is bad, science is bad, nuke this rock! kill them all! burn!
-
why bother?
-
Originally posted by redsniper
^^ Bingo. Science and religion don't have to conflict.
Well, from the Christian perspective, science and God shouldn't conflict, because God is the author of both the natural and the supernatural. If there is an apparent conflict, it's because our understanding of one or the other is flawed.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
my conclusion:
religion is bad, science is bad, nuke this rock! kill them all! burn!
And people wonder how I get up in the morning....
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
And people wonder how I get up in the morning....
i ussally dont get out of bed till the afternoon :D
-
Yeah, ever since I got out of school I've gotten into that nasty habit too. Every time I wake up and the clock says 12:15, I just hate myself.
-
i dont waste time hating my self, i just focus my hate onto the human race and wait for the day i can burn them all with nuclear fire.
-
(http://www.ecology.com/earth-at-a-glance/earth-at-a-glance-feature/images/1.jpg)
but realy, why do you waist your time hateing such an insignifigant spec of mostly water and carbon
and god damnit! why did you have to go and derail a perfictly good thread for argueing about creationism!?
the auh... light thing, it's pathetic, HA!, pathetic I say, none of you shal dare chalenge my oppionion for I shal crush you with my mighty logic!