|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2011 : 06:25:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bongorider
Originally posted by JerryB
Missing the point. The point is that it can no longer function as a chain saw. The chain saw, which is the system, can no longer function. |
In addition, your argument is that removing critical parts of a system causes the system to fail, this I don't dispute, but please explain how you are inferring from this that the system arose spontaneously and fully formed.
|
I don't think anyone here disputes that removing a critical part of a system causes the system to fail.
Jerry's problem is that he don't seem to be able to understand is that a failed system can be used to do something else than the system's previous function.
The chainsaw without the chain will lay dormant in the genome until a new mutation hooks up the chainsaw-without-the-chain to the pedals of the bicycle.
If the chainsaw-without-the-chain has a 1% less survivability, then gene will slowly through generations start to fade from the population, but as long as there are still bacteria left with it when the chainsaw-to-the-pedals mutation occur, a 2% increase in survivability will save the new configuration. In a number of generations, they all will be powered thusly.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 07:59:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by JerryB
Well, no. Because the system as a whole is not a dependent system.
The study considered the entire genome as a whole over time. Not any particular gene. And even if a mutated gene kills the organism, that says nothing that it depended on the rest of the genome for that action.
|
Sigh. Your calculation was for 41,471 nucleotides, not one genome. From Wikipedia: The Boltzmann entropy is obtained if one assumes one can treat all the component particles of a thermodynamic system as statistically independent. Your calculation violates the above assumption. IC violates the above assumption.
|
You guys are just so lost I don't know if I can continue the discussion. What does an ICS have to with a genome? It's two separate discussions.
And do you people really think that one gene cannot mutate without help from the others? Really?
Where on earth are you getting this????
Can you come up with a paper or a known scientist that agrees with you on this? |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 08:13:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Do not reply to me again without references from a known scientist or university science department. |
You'll need to work to your own standards, then: supply references supporting the idea that "genomic entropy" should be calculated as you have done.
|
Genomic entropy is my term. I have sent you to a university that shows the calculation 3 times now and you just ignore it. You are going to have to discredit that site if you are to dismiss the math. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 08:17:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Genomes are not irreducibly complex as evidenced that one may mutate and do nothing to the rest of the system. It can still function. However, I could see it argued that SOME of them could be--those that result in the death of the organism due to mutation, but I have never researched this.
|
If SOME of them are then you don't have independency. That should be fairly easy to comprehend...
|
JerryB cannot just throw out the effect of dependent events. Even if they seem to be a small proportion of the total, dependence tends to be amplified the more you attempt to apply theorems that assume independence. When you move past the science and into the math of your model, the mathematical jumps need to be deductions.
These are matters of pure logic and probability, you just cannot arbitrarily decide to assume independence when it isn't true. All of these papers assuming this can essentially be ignored until someone can justify why it is acceptable to assume independence here. It's not quite mathematically sound, but it would probably meet scientific standards if someone could empirically determine the extent and manner of the dependence and use this to bound the error that will invariably be introduced by incorrectly applying ideas that require independence. If this error is small enough, we could take these papers more seriously.
Even with this, there could still be problems, and it is ideal to actually work out the math if you can first understand the dependence well enough.
|
How do you reason that random mutations are dependent upon other random mutations? Can I see references that this is true? |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 08:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bongorider
Originally posted by JerryB
Missing the point. The point is that it can no longer function as a chain saw. The chain saw, which is the system, can no longer function. Period. Sure, I can still use the piston as a paper weight, but that does not a chain saw make.
|
Aren't you missing the point? The parts comprising the incomplete chainsaw do not have to function as a chainsaw, if the saw blade can be used as a saw or weapon then it is still useful. The analogy is that parts of a biological system can arise independently and if they contribute to the survival of the organism, then they are more likely to be passed down genetically. Explain why you are placing such importance on the function of the final system given that various parts which comprise it can have value.
In addition, your argument is that removing critical parts of a system causes the system to fail, this I don't dispute, but please explain how you are inferring from this that the system arose spontaneously and fully formed.
|
Yes, they have to function as a chain saw because that is the only way the definition of an irreducible complex system (ICS)is met. It's irrelevant that the parts can function in another capacity.
I'm not inferring that an ICS will arise spontaneously, but there are two reasons that a biological ICS could not evolve through random mutations.
1) There is no intelligence behind random mutations. Yet, in order for a heart to begin evolving so that it could later hook up with lungs, blood vessels and kidneys to form an ICS, something would have to be directing it to do so.
2) An ICS cannot function at all until all parts are operating together. So why would or how could natural selection select for something that isn't even working?
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 08:51:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by JerryB
Well, no. Because the system as a whole is not a dependent system.
The study considered the entire genome as a whole over time. Not any particular gene. And even if a mutated gene kills the organism, that says nothing that it depended on the rest of the genome for that action.
|
Sigh. Your calculation was for 41,471 nucleotides, not one genome. From Wikipedia: The Boltzmann entropy is obtained if one assumes one can treat all the component particles of a thermodynamic system as statistically independent. Your calculation violates the above assumption. IC violates the above assumption.
|
You are whistling air out your ass. Do not reply to me again without references from a known scientist or university science department.
|
Gee whiz JerryB. Your reply to Hawks doesn't seem like a reply at all. To me it looks like nothing but an insult and an order which you aren't authorized on this site to make. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your reply?
And really. Given that what you are proposing is considered by most biologists to be fringe or crank science, I would think that by now you would be used to people questioning you as they have been doing here. Must be frustrating to be the only genius in the room. But hey, that's your cross to bare, and you are baring it willingly I guess because no one is forcing you to post here, eh?
|
That reply was a bit terse. I have edited it.
Yes, it is sometimes lonely at the top...LOL
Let me just add that what I am proposing is not crank science, it is brand new science. And science that one has to keep an open mind to grasp and accept. I don't think anyone prior to me has tied Tipler's observer to Heisenburg's observer to the observer in the double slit experiments. It's different.
But if we go quantum, all of the parts tie in nicely to show a god of the universe using only math and science.
Is that heavy? Many seem to think so....I have ran into a few PhD level scientists (on the web) who seem fascinated with, and quiz me endlessly about the concept. I have no idea how many would embrace it, but I am quite sure that many find it interesting.
That's a start. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 08:58:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bongorider
Originally posted by JerryB
Missing the point. The point is that it can no longer function as a chain saw. The chain saw, which is the system, can no longer function. |
In addition, your argument is that removing critical parts of a system causes the system to fail, this I don't dispute, but please explain how you are inferring from this that the system arose spontaneously and fully formed.
|
I don't think anyone here disputes that removing a critical part of a system causes the system to fail.
Jerry's problem is that he don't seem to be able to understand is that a failed system can be used to do something else than the system's previous function.
The chainsaw without the chain will lay dormant in the genome until a new mutation hooks up the chainsaw-without-the-chain to the pedals of the bicycle.
If the chainsaw-without-the-chain has a 1% less survivability, then gene will slowly through generations start to fade from the population, but as long as there are still bacteria left with it when the chainsaw-to-the-pedals mutation occur, a 2% increase in survivability will save the new configuration. In a number of generations, they all will be powered thusly.
|
Doc, is this magic?  It seems you are almost stating that there is intelligence in random mutations. HOW would a random mutation hook up a chain saw without a chain to the pedals of a bicycle. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 09:08:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Can you come up with a paper or a known scientist that agrees with you on this?
|
Ever heard of the minimal genome project?
JerryB = PowerWise = troll.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 09:22:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by JerryB
Can you come up with a paper or a known scientist that agrees with you on this?
|
Ever heard of the minimal genome project?
JerryB = PowerWise = troll.
|
Yes, and so...........what? |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 11:38:09 [Permalink]
|
For true trolling as well as an example of how gullible the ID people are, read the thread that this post is in.
This post explains a little how it was done.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 01/01/2011 11:42:55 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 12:46:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
You do not understand that there exists Classical Thermodynamics that deals only in heat exchanges (and pressure, but that's not germain to this particular discussion), and statistical mechanics made famous by Boltzmann and others.
|
And you don't understand that there's a difference between atoms and molecules in an ideal gas confined to a well defined volume, and amino-acids not confined to that same volume.
You can say that the entropy of an untidy room is a metaphor for Boltzmann's experiment, and I'd agree with you. But you can't use Boltzmann's equation to calculate the entropy of that said room, because that is not was the equation was meant to do.
Nowhere in the Eyre-Walker study or your linked comment on their work by James F. Crow, is it indicated that "entropy in genome" or the 2LoT has anything to do with the study. You are misrepresenting their work.
| SLOT is a universal, ever-present law that uses many different formulas to calculate it's effect. You must agree, because you name three above--To which I could add about a dozen more definitions depending on the situation. |
In each instance, the scientist had to make experiments that could verify, or importantly falsify the certain instance in which they attempted to apply SLOT. The result in Boltzmann's case is the Boltzmann Constant which apply to the specific case which he was testing.
| A bridge is a machine with well matched parts? You cannot have an ICS with a single part. |
LMFAO! Straw-man. Dave's bridge is a three-part structure. It was the addition of the trunk that completed it.
"My" biological law? I'm afraid that once again, you are showing your education in science. I'm further afraid that a famous biologist named Ernst Walter Mayr came up with that definition many years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_W._Mayr
I was simply paraphrasing him: Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. Viable in that they can live a healthy life and fertile in that they can produce offspring as well. |
Then explain Ring Species. It/they violates his definition of species. As usual, nature (and life) is more complex than people imagine. Being a defender of the scientific method, he'd roll in his grave if he knew you were quoting him in defending ID.
| And you don't understand the slit experiments. The wave ALWAYS collapses when being observed and NEVER collapses when it is NOT being observed. |
How can you be sure that it NEVER collapses when it's NOT being observed?
I want to see some evidence of your assertion.
| No, they didn't. Eyre-Walker and Keightley said nothing about entropy. |
I don't care that they didn't. |
So you admit that you don't have a problem misrepresenting their work. Just like you drew the unfounded conclusion that I was a follower of the Gaia hypothesis and then went on to burn strawmen based on that.
| That's not relevant to their study from their perspective. What they found was increasing harmful mutations in the human genome over a 6 million year time period. |
They weren't studying all mutations, only harmful ones. If they had studied beneficial ones too, they may have found those to be more plentiful.
By the way, what was the criteria for measuring negative, neutral, and positive mutations?
The genome would have had to order for homo sapiens to have developed such complexities over Chimp such as speech, science and engineering skills. Guess what, this is evidence that the macroevolution you espouse didn't happen.
|
That's your unfounded conclusion. But the scientists who actually made the study didn't draw the same conclusions, because they had an intimate understanding of the data.
| But if you will research this thoroughly, you may actually discover that there are IDists out there with no theological agenda. In fact, the Panspermians who are ardent IDists are atheists. |
The standard panspermia hypothesis is that life originated elsewhere and seeded here. But if IDists want to use Punctuated Equilibrium as an argument for ID, then they also have to admit that the Designer has been here thousands of times throughout the ages, tweaking the genome over and over again until they produced Homo Sapien. A Designer powerful enough to tweak our genome like that, on a global scale, must have a power nothing short of a God, so I can't see how even Panspermians you refer to can be considered atheists. They do have a God, they just avoid naming it.
Are you a panspermian? Or Christian, like Tipler?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 12:55:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Genomic entropy is my term. I have sent you to a university that shows the calculation 3 times now and you just ignore it. You are going to have to discredit that site if you are to dismiss the math. |
No, you're going to have to support the necessary premise for your math to hold: that deleterious mutations in a genome are both statistically independent and uniformly distributed. If you cannot do so, then using that particular formula is mathematically improper.
You also need to defend your rejection of the units. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 12:57:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, you really do not think that some people have used the word "entropy" to describe things other than thermodynamics? Even though the Shannon entropy of a fair coin toss is 1 bit, while the Boltzmann entropy of a fair coin toss would be 0.69031×10-23 joules/Kelvin (and thus meaningless)? You don't think that context is at all important, and you think that the word "entropy" always refers to the result of Boltzmann's formula? |
Oh, I'm sure someone has used the word entropy incorrectly, but doubtfully someone knowledgeable in thermodynamics. Yes, there are several ways to calculate entropy depending on what we are studying.
No, I don't think that Boltzmann's formula is the only way to calculate entropy. It's just one of many. But what you fail to understand is that it is common to use S = K log W strictly to calculate statistical mechanics while disregarding joules/kelvin.
You once made reference to my debate with Pixie on another forum (years ago). Pixie is a PhD physical chemist and it was he that convinced me we could use that formula without energy/temp consideration. A little research at the time proved him to be correct.
But,I could have gone just as easily, and more simply with R. Feynman's: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
IOW: W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
S = logW
S = 7.3
But, I will go with the greats of physics any day over someone I meet on the Internet.
Erwin Schrodinger mused: “Every process, event, happening—call it what you will: in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase in entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy—or as you might say, produces positive entropy—and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death.” {From Schrodinger’s book, What is Life? Chapter 8}
Schrodinger used a take off of the exact same formula that I used: –entropy = K log 1/D where K is Boltzmann’s constant and D is the atomistic state (arrangement) of the cell.
If he did, then I can.
Any way we go, entropy is still rising. So, you would still lose the argument that the genome has ordered from man's walk from chimp. It has not. It has disordered.
| Really, do try to keep up. They all use different constants and units because they mean different things. "Statistical thermodynamics" is not a synonym for "information theory." |
Yes it is. See, here is a perfect example of someone just not having studied the field enough to be competent in it.
How did Boltzmann define the entropy his famous formula calculates? He stated that entropy is the opposite of information.
That is exactly what we are calculating in the human genome when we note an entropic rise: an information loss.
DNA--Genes are simply organic information and it is when enough of this information is lost that the population enters mutational meltdown/error catastrophe and is in danger of extinction.
| So now it's a definition? I thought you said it was a "biological law." When did Mayr ever call the biological species concept a "biological law?" |
It is both: A definition implying a law because it 1) defines a species and 2) states that two non-species cannot interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. That kind of puts the notion to bed that chimps intermingled their genes with something else to evolve man.
| Wow, that's really bad. "Simply by observing" my ass. The act of measuring changes the electrons, it's not like they just zip on through a detector without any effect. Heisenberg demonstrated this. |
What were they measuring in that video? They were simply trying to observe what the electron was doing when it entered the slits. You really need to hone up on the double slit experiments. Info is all over the Web about them. Many have been done and they ALL consistently show that it takes a conscious observer to collapse the wave function.
See, this is the difference between my science and your "science." Mine is based on scientific experiment and yours is accomplished by looking at rocks, noting that they look "funny" and scientific conclusions are then derived from that observation. You have no empirical experimentation to show at all. I do.
| Moving the goalposts, again. You suggested that machines require designers. Instead of agreeing that they don't, you have demonstrated that your claim that you'll change your mind is nothing more than a lie. |
I stipulated that ICSs require a designer, not that a tree cannot fall on a danged rock without a designer....LOL....Man, are you ever stretching here.
| Are you claiming that the only way we know that a Kenmore refrigerator was designed is to go through some sciencey "design detection" algorithm? That we can't go find Carl Figsworth and actually talk to him about his fridge design? |
No, so you are stating once again that the only way to detect design is to talk to the design engineer? How then, if your sweater has lost it's tag and you don't know what company produced it, could you ever show design in it?
| I wasn't arguing AGW, I was discussing your claims about consensus science, and showing that it wasn't the science you were talking about, it was politics. In other words, I was demonstrating that once again, you're full of crap. |
And it's always me who is accused of being rude to people...LOL
| Name one theory within ID, by your previously stated definition of "theory." |
Lose information (such as info not fixed as in a book or CD) will degrade over time unless energy is added into the system to stabilize it.
Now, your turn. Name one "theory" in Darwinism that can be falsified. And remember that if you cannot, you have no theories.
| Then quit putting words in their mouths. |
Another Strawman alert...LOL I never stated that they calculated or mused on genomic entropy in that paper. You asked where they stated this, I replied they didn't and then you accuse of of putting words in their mouth. Funny.
| No, you're just conflating the terms "deletrious mutations" and "entropy" in a completely inappropriate fashion. There's no reason at all to think that an "ordered" genome is a good thing. Quite the opposite, since a fully-ordered genome would be all a single base, and thus wouldn't code for any sort of viable creature. |
This is silly. Man is immensely more complex than the protist you claim him to have evolved from. The order I'm referring to is more genes, more information programmed to foment thought, consciousness, moral values......
Even in man's relatively recent walk from chimp, we would expect the genome to show this order thus allowing for the creation of doctors, lawyers, carpenters and business people from monkeys.
Guess what, that is not what the study shows. Instead, it shows good information being deleted at a rate of 1.6 mutating genes per generation over a period of about 6 million years.
What science shows is not always what we want it to show. But we have to live with it.
| You're the one trying (and failing) to apply statistical thermodynamics to a genome without so much as taking a single temperature measurement. |
Statistical mechanics has not a thing to do with temperature. Again, you refuse to enter even the early 1900s in this science and this is simply ignorance on your part. Please reread all the references I posted to you on this. I'm not going to post anymore because you fail to comment on them, to address them; and just blow someone like Richard Feynman off with one liners.
| It's still a spot measurement of the per-generation "entropy." You used the 1.6 mutations-per-generation number and claimed a trend. Can't say whether next generation it will be more or less, now can you? Of course, worse than that, you came up with a result that is utterly meaningless. And the fact that you are unable to expound upon the meaning tells me that you don't even know. |
Me? LOL, you didn't read the piece by the interpreter of the study, Prof. James Crow of U of Nebraska? That is where I got the figures. You have attributed so much science to me that other scientists have contributed that if people believed you, I would be famous.
And see above, I expound on this.
However, remember that SLOT is a tendency. It is irrelevant if the next successive generation will be more or less mutations. What matters is the trend, the tendency.
| I have never believed that man "poofed" from chimps. You are the one positing a designer to "poof" things into existence which are impossible for nature to do on its own, remember? |
No, I don't remember positing a designer poofing anything into existence. I certainly don't believe automobile companies poof out new cars.
| But it makes your result even more meaningless. How many Kelvins are in a genome? |
No need to be redundant as I discuss this above. Read the Schrodinger quote. Heck, read the book. It's good reading for us curious types and I think it is online.
No, it says that the rest of the genome depended upon the absence of that mutation for viability.
|
That's like saying that my entire existence depends upon the absence of a knife presently penetrating my heart, a gun putting a bullet through my brain and getting hit in the head by an anvil while walking down the street. Therefore, me, the knife, the gun, bullet and anvil comprise a thermodynamic system. Come on, Dave. What kind of logic is that?? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 13:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Let me just add that what I am proposing is not crank science, it is brand new science. |
No, it's decades old wishful thinking. Go read The Tao of Physics or other new-age claptrap.| And science that one has to keep an open mind to grasp and accept. |
It might be science if you could support it with evidence. You haven't even tried, yet.| I don't think anyone prior to me has tied Tipler's observer to Heisenburg's observer to the observer in the double slit experiments. It's different. |
No, it's boring nonsense. Where is your evidence that the "observer" needs to be conscious and/or intelligent?| But if we go quantum, all of the parts tie in nicely to show a god of the universe using only math and science. |
Where is the math or science that demonstrates that quantum observers need to be conscious or intelligent?| Is that heavy? Many seem to think so.... |
It's "heavy" in a stoned-freshman-staring-at-his-hand sort of way.| I have ran into a few PhD level scientists (on the web) who seem fascinated with, and quiz me endlessly about the concept. I have no idea how many would embrace it, but I am quite sure that many find it interesting. |
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 13:18:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Doc, is this magic? |
No, it's an analogy.
Your inability to recognize the inherent flaws in analogies makes you think that analogies of the SLOT is the same as SLOT, and can be treated with maths describing SLOT.
This is what Dave has been trying to explain to you.
| It seems you are almost stating that there is intelligence in random mutations. HOW would a random mutation hook up a chain saw without a chain to the pedals of a bicycle. |
By performing enough random mutations until it happens.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
