T1B

Diogenes wrote: Wrong as usual. The fact that you and your ilk gratuitously and constantly conflate ID and creationism merely shows your bias and dishonesty. So-called 'scientists' either disavow ID (and try to stifle debate on the subject) or remain silent to avoid the kind of stigmatism you demonstrate.

for what purpose would scientists try and stifle debate on the subject of ID?

I've given you five (now six) chances to make your arguments and so far all I've gotten is how oppressed you (and your ilk) are.....

once again, present your case....

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
I guess because the majority of scientists in his day didn't wish to offend the prevailing orthodoxy (and he ended up recanting , a la Karl Popper) he must have been full of shit.

look bud, if you want to believe you were created by some mystical being I could really give a fat rats ass....

but throwing out these kinds of analogies makes you look stupid.....

still waiting on that Scientific argument for Intelligent Design......this is the fifth time I've asked....

....and this is the third time I've responded.

Just one argument here.

BTW, when did I say anything about any 'mystical biengs"?

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Wrong as usual. The fact that you and your ilk gratuitously and constantly conflate ID and creationism merely shows your bias and dishonesty. So-called 'scientists' either disavow ID (and try to stifle debate on the subject) or remain silent to avoid the kind of stigmatism you demonstrate.

for what purpose would scientists try and stifle debate on the subject of ID?

Real scientists wouldn't.

Materialistic idealogs who claim the mantle of 'scientist' on the other hand....

the first sentence in your link pretty much closes the door on giving the paper any credibility whatsoever......

Both Charles Darwin himself and contemporary neo-Darwinists such as
Francisco Ayala, Richard Dawkins, and Richard Lewontin acknowledge
that biological organisms appear to have been designed by an intelligence.

they've never said any such thing......

that's "quote mining" at it's worst......

Felix wrote:the first sentence in your link pretty much closes the door on giving the paper any credibility whatsoever......

Both Charles Darwin himself and contemporary neo-Darwinists such as
Francisco Ayala, Richard Dawkins, and Richard Lewontin acknowledge
that biological organisms appear to have been designed by an intelligence.

they've never said any such thing......

Wrong. The key word is appear.

Here's another link to go over your head...

http://www.designinference.com/document ... _of_ID.pdf

Diogenes wrote:The fact that you and your ilk gratuitously and constantly conflate ID and creationism . . .

Is based in no small part on the fact that the ID crowd recycled a "creation science" textbook and merely substituted the phrase "intelligent design" for "creationism."

Also, the origins of "intelligent design" are rather obviously an attempt to make an end run around the Establishment Clause issue that creationism presents. "Intelligent design" is creationism with a reference to a religious denomination-neutral Supreme Being, rather than the Judeo-Christian God.

It's just boggles the mind that someone would theorize that since eveolution is complicated shit, that it must mean that someone was manipulating it passes as "science" to some people.


The odds that an intelligent life form from another planet seeded the earth with bacteria to eventually build up an atmosphere(like scientists have theorized is possible on Mars with human intevention), are far greater than an intangible "supreme being" being the orchestrator of such things... since this "supreme being" is just that... intangible.


Trying to create a case that extraterrestial life engineered life on earth is something that could be studied as "science." The intangible-being-in-the-sky theory is "religion." Big difference between the two. One's an assumption, one is a study of factual evidence.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:The fact that you and your ilk gratuitously and constantly conflate ID and creationism . . .

Is based in no small part on the fact that the ID crowd recycled a "creation science" textbook and merely substituted the phrase "intelligent design" for "creationism."

Also, the origins of "intelligent design" are rather obviously an attempt to make an end run around the Establishment Clause issue that creationism presents. "Intelligent design" is creationism with a reference to a religious denomination-neutral Supreme Being, rather than the Judeo-Christian God.

More insipid ad hominems. Color me shocked. That is about as valid as saying that since Darwin was an atheist, his writings should be ignored. And as far as the origins of the term...

Prior to the publication of the book Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase in contexts that are unrelated to the modern use of the term. The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[51] and even in a 1861 letter of Charles Darwin.[52] The words are also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[53]

The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, Teleological argument for the existence of God: "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer."[54] The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 book Chance or Design? by James Horigan[55] and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.[56]

From your own link.

Dinsdale wrote:

Stick to spellcheck 'smack', bitch.

You truly are an ignorant twit.


OK... so ID is based on an assumption(which is unprovable, and therefore can never be science) that the concept of spontanious life and evolution and all that jazz are much too complex to be random.

OK.


So at the vore, ID is passing as "science" merely based on astronomic sets of probablilities being virtually impossible without the intervention of some entity that has the ability to ochestrate such things.

OK... let's roll with that.


The next clear night, go look at the sky. See all of those stars? Many of them may well represent solar systems similar to ours -- the technology to locate and determine such things is new, and still emerging.

BUT... we're using YOUR argument, based on probablilities.


There's likely billions upon billions of other solar systems out there. Billions. So, what's the probablility that one among those billions formed in a way that's quite similar to ours?

I'll answer that for you -- quite high, from a mathematic standpoint... quite high, in fact.


Now, look at the scientific progress manking has made in the last 50 years -- previously, a journey to the moon was absolutely unimaginable. Yet it was done almost 40 years ago. And while Einstein threw a wrench in the gears of long-distance space travel, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that something was overlooked, and that whole space/time continuum thing has some complex shit going on that we don't understand now, but we quite possibly will with further technological advancements and research.


Now, with the age of the universe in the buhzillions of years(sorry, thumpers, it's true), what are the odds that something similar didn't happen a 100 gazillion light years away, 50 gazillion years ago? When you start talking about billions of systems over billions of years, a reasonable person would conclude that the probability is quite high.


And with the advancements we've made in both space travel and the general understanding thereof, it's not unreasonable to conclude that if beings on another planet had say, an extra thousand... ten thousand... hundred thousand years to refine their space travel, traversing galaxies might not be such a huge obstacle.


Keep in mind, these are all just extensions of the same "probablility" that the ID proponents espouse.


And since many scientists here on earth think it's quite possible that we could seed another planet with the neccessary organism to eventually create an atmospere, it's more than reasonable to consider the possibility that other beings did that here.


And studying whether that happened, and if so, how, would be "science." It would be some quite laborous, tedious science that any inroads could take literally centuries to make, but it would be science, nonetheless.


But on the other hand, saying "shit's way too complicated to understand, so it must be an intangible man in the sky" isn't science -- it the complete freaking abandonment of science, by its very definition.


If you steer your "science" towards the idea that a concrete, tangible entity had a hand in creating life on earth... that's science. Sure, with the tools we have at present it might be dead-end science, but science. Crediting it to a supernatural, omnipotent being is "religion."

Dinsdale wrote:Crediting it to a supernatural, omnipotent being is "religion."

hold it right there...nobody ever said anything about this onmipotent manifestation being "religious"....given the fact that they never said anything about "religion" proves that ID is a viable science.....(the circular logic of creationists/IDists)

if anybody could define exactly what this "intelligent designer" is, then maybe we could get a little better handle on the "science" of ID.....

here's an idea, why not just link me up to another article by Dembski.......

mvscal wrote: If life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously, then obviously a being of such complexity as to be able to create the universe and everything in it would also be ruled out by that theory.

SHHHH!


Their heads might explode.

mvscal wrote:

If life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously, then obviously a being of such complexity as to be able to create the universe and everything in it would also be ruled out by that theory.

You are so...narrow-minded. Have you not heard of this being?

mvscal wrote:

warren wrote:I believe they were all written in the context of persecution including the Gospel which Jesus, a human, wrote.

Jesus didn't write any gospels, warren. None of the gospels are contemporaneous accounts of his life.

Yeah I agree man, I was under deress, not due to these fucks but due to the damn cows keep busting my fence down and getting in the road.

It was a mistake and I accept full stupidity for making that statement.

-Warren.

warren wrote:the damn cows keep busting my fence down and getting in the road.

What's the big deal?

Sin,
War Wagon





HA! FIRST, BITCHES!!!!!!

mvscal wrote:

warren wrote:I believe they were all written in the context of persecution including the Gospel which Jesus, a human, wrote.

Jesus didn't write any gospels, warren. None of the gospels are contemporaneous accounts of his life.

Oh, and by the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John got that thing on the Mount pretty good though. My super stupid bad.

I know you're not a believer in all of this MV, but you're a good guy, and you're obviously spot on about history and you do your research and you're the prime example of what these people don't get.

I'd enjoy having a pint with you and not discussing politics, religion or anything other than sports and the pussy I ain't getting because she ain't into the threesomes, that I know of.

You're a good man on this board and I've always taken your critical thinking as, at least somewhat ,above what I've got to offer.

Happy Holiday's you freaking atheist, and I wish nothing but the best for you and your's.

It seems as if I may have to walk away with my tail 'tween me legs and make a little Christmas money, I hope not. I've got the money and I'm loving keeping my pastures right, my cattle intact and fucking with these druids even though I'm wrong half the time.


w.

warren wrote:[I'm wrong half the time.

Don't sell yourself short -- you're a tremendous slouch.

warren wrote:Longwinded I may have been but spelling smack and using the monitor reference to get across the point that I don't give a fuck wether it was pizza, pancake or the pope's hat was the intended barb.

No warren, you can't spin your way out of it that way. So you can't tell a pizza from a pancake, no big whoop. Trying to slither around by playing the "I didn't give a fuck" card makes you a liar however.

I will concede that the homo-smack is both tired and the refuge of the ignorant and lazy, yet I find it not surprizing at all, that you boomeranged it right back to yourself by going all "warrenette" up on me and suggesting I go to homo-sites to ply my wares. It's kind of IRONIC wouldn't you say?

Yes, it is tired and very much the fallback of the lazy, which is exactly why I held up that cliched mirror in your ignorant face. No irony involved here sport. You spew it you view it.

I'll really try to put more effort into dismantling you and your gang of internet warriors.

You'll need to. If this effort of your is an example, you've got a lonnnnng way to go.

The last thing I have to take umbrage with you and your "I'm atheist, I'm cool, and I'm proud" posse is that you and your ilk are the one's that keep bringing the religion bit into the fray.

I haven't said anything to this point concerning religion. And I am also not an atheist. Nor agnostic. Keep guessing.

I have gone out of my way to state that I have a belief system but I reserve judgement on anyone for any of their creed, yet you use the "Christer" game plan at least as much as I used the homo stank.

Example? Link? Oh yeah, you just made that one up. Or you have me confused with someone else. Keep your damn spreadsheets up to date there warren, you suck at this.

I hope you can wrap your obviously brilliant head around the fact that you critisized me repeatedly for slamming your significant other by using derogatory homosexual references and then found it neccessary to go "steers and queers state."

My critque of you was honest and fair. Once again, you went to the ingnorance of gay-smack. You got a little taste of your own medicine and now your trying to suggest that two annonymous posters are "significant others". Bravo sport. There's your pot and kettle right smack in your greeel.

Pot meet the kettle bitch.

Well, I have met you, in a manner of speaking, and found you to be quite the kettling bitch with a potty mouth.

Not so pleased to meet you.

warren wrote:If you are to believe the Book of Genesis, then how did Cain get a wife if he and Able were the only two children of Adam and Eve?

The Bible doesn't say that Cain and Abel were the only two children of Adam and Eve.

poptart wrote:

warren wrote:If you are to believe the Book of Genesis, then how did Cain get a wife if he and Able were the only two children of Adam and Eve?

The Bible doesn't say that Cain and Abel were the only two children of Adam and Eve.

So they married their sisters?

How very Morman of them

Yes, in the early days ALL were Mormons.
You didn't know?

They had no white shirts, black name tags, bicycles, or Beaver Cleaver haircuts.
But they made do.

The Mormon species has evolved.
Praise be to Jo Jo Smith!

how 'bout magic underwear?

smackaholic wrote:how 'bout magic underwear?

Please let it be stain resistant.

sin

PSU

Dinsdale wrote:It's just boggles the mind that someone would theorize that since eveolution is complicated shit, that it must mean that someone was manipulating it passes as "science" to some people.


The odds that an intelligent life form from another planet seeded the earth with bacteria to eventually build up an atmosphere(like scientists have theorized is possible on Mars with human intevention), are far greater than an intangible "supreme being" being the orchestrator of such things... since this "supreme being" is just that... intangible.


Trying to create a case that extraterrestial life engineered life on earth is something that could be studied as "science." The intangible-being-in-the-sky theory is "religion." Big difference between the two. One's an assumption, one is a study of factual evidence.

Base any theory that you have just proposed that hold any more validity than an omnipotent being instituting life on this planet.

I at least take the "leap of faith" that Kierkegard suggested when he argue for intelligent design, but now you are calling out that an alien species dropped off some bacteria and began life on our planet and saying that is more viable then my "God" theory.

You sir, are the dumbest motherfucker to ever have dawned these darkened hallways.

You have the guile to call me an idiot for believing in a higher power that has tradition and hope behind it and yet have so much faith in an alien race "creating" our existence.

Dear Heavenly Father, please make the 9 day's go quickly until my Tina arrives, because she will read this bullshit and slap me over the back of the head and say "get your ass back to working and quit meddling in these mindless fucks fantasyland's."

You are so hypocritally stupid that is beyond belief, I'm a nutcase for going to Church and believing a God that designed life as we know it, but you are genius for believing in alien polination of the planet.

If nothing else, we're both fucked, but you are in the deep end of the pool without your waterwings because you keep calling me out with no room for critizism for yourself.

Fuck off punkster, I'll bet you've never extended your travel's past a 30 mile radius from mummy's house, I'll bet you don't have a library card, a passport, and have to beg you're mommy for the family truckster on a Friday just so you can play dungeons and dragons in the basement of your best budd's basement.

Fuck off and when you want to know what it's really like out there, teeny bopper, ask your mom, because I'll have already laid it out for her after I laid her out and we got over laughing at that mistake she made that spawned your special olympiad ass of an existence.

What suck is that you were still born and they had slice her and dice her just get you distended figure out, otherwise she'd of had decent set of ailerons.

I'm going to kick your silly little ass and then next week I'll finally get the old lady interested in this shithole because she'll see how much fun it is to lambast you commie dicklicks and the true limey will come out and bust your ass again.

Dear Lord in Heaven, allow me to meet these upchucking Jaegermiester men in an airport lounge and ask them if they'd like to have a smoke outside.

In Christ's Name you know they'll never make their flight.

All in love in world, W.

poptart wrote:

warren wrote:If you are to believe the Book of Genesis, then how did Cain get a wife if he and Able were the only two children of Adam and Eve?

The Bible doesn't say that Cain and Abel were the only two children of Adam and Eve.

Sure it doesn't, and I didn't claim that it did. However, did he marry a sister, a niece, or did he butfuck dinsdale's father and spawn the bitch he felt enough jealousy for to kill?

Quote for me, when you get around to it, Pastor, the origin of his wife.

Thank you in advance, because I'm much of a reader, I just pick this shit up on the late night advert's.

In all seriousness, God bless and have the happiest of Holiday's with your loved one's.

That part I mean, without any sarcasm.

Poptart, and the rest of you guy's are just here for fun. I hope all of you understand that I just enjoy the verbal jousting and appreciate and enjoy all you stupid fuckers beligerant inputs.

All of you have brought through some difficult day's and I am forever in your debt.

This is the last pussy take you'll get from me so piss on it, delete it, or ignore, but I truly love all you non-descript fuckheads on this page. To say it's been cathartic would be understatement.


Happy Hannukah, Merry Christmas, Sweet Kwansza, and an all time Atheist New Year to you all!!!

We'll all be roasting ribs in hell anyway.

Fuck you very much, w.

WARREN wrote:....... an alien species dropped off some bacteria and began life on our planet ....

An alien dropped by Earth, pumped a jizz load into the ocean, it festered there for a trillion years, and the next thing you know Dinsdale is pounding out 19 posts a day on a message board.

Run with it .........

Happy Holidays to you too, warren.

Genesis 5:4 says that Adam has sons and daughters.

holy christ.

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Rack Tart, anyhoo...

rozy wrote:

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.

Diogenes wrote:

rozy wrote:

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.

Had to look it up and it was exactly the verse I figured it would be.

Holy Shit - Rack fucking 88

Dinsdale wrote:And while Einstein threw a wrench in the gears of long-distance space travel, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that something was overlooked, and that whole space/time continuum thing has some complex shit going on that we don't understand now, but we quite possibly will with further technological advancements and research.

Hey, we all know the universe isn't really as big as the scientists say it is. That's just a trick science is using as part of its Grand Plan to Force Its Ideas Upon Everyone and Take Religion Out of the Public Square. This is quite logical, don't you see?

Btw, theoretical physics aren't addressed in the Bible. Therefore: relatively, quantum mechanics ... string theory -- all of those notions are complete horseshit.

Sin,

The "science" of nutjobs.

rozy wrote:

RadioFan wrote:'sup, Dio?


Btw, you fuckers are slipping. I thought this thread would have hit 10 pages about 48 hours after socal posted it.

Why? Has anyone's mind changed yet?

Nah, probably not. It's just that none of us like to argue or anything. Besides, CFB is on its unGodly hiatus. :wink:

Rack Dio's av, btw. Even better than usual.

Happy Holidays to you and yours, too, warren, you fundamentalist, paranoid fuck.

Screw_Michigan wrote:holy christ.

Indeed.

88's 10 Commandments are quite rackable. Especially in light of the ongoing ORU fiasco, here.

Sen. Grassley, your thoughts?

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:While science on the other hand, no doubt will change. Hell, any number of major paradigms could change in the next 10-20 years.

How about questioning the basic paradigm that evelotion must have occured without any outside force directing it?

Blasphemy.

Depends on how you define "outside force." If there were any natural evidence for an "outside force," it would be seriously considered. Supernatural doesn't count, because by definition, it's not science, Dio.

You still keep trying to compare science to religion in terms of "blasphemy," on the science end.

Science doesn't work that way. Are there cliques among scientists? Of course. But that's about ego and reputation, not about the "blasphemy" of the scientific method. Huge difference, Dio.

When Gene Shoemaker first proposed that large impacts by asteroids and comets upon the Earth may have led to mass extinctions, including the end of the dinosaurs, were his ideas met with skepticism? OF COURSE. That's the way science works. But I highly doubt even Shoemaker's most ardent critics called him "blasphemous."

Pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

At the time Shoemaker presented his ideas, it was believed other phenomena led to mass extinctions, and that asteroid and comet impacts were RARE upon the Earth. Shoemaker spent YEARS taking samples, all over the world, trying to show -- through measurements of elements that could have only been created by the force of impacts -- that indeed, there is evidence of large impact craters, all over the Earth, before he presented his ideas, and had tons of data to back it up. (not to mention later Satellite images)

Within a few years, the entire paradigm shifted, especially when the comet, partially named after him, slammed into Jupitor. Then we finally began to take NEOs seriously.

Does this in any way shape or form, rattle my faith?

You're joking, right? Why should it?

As far as I'm concerned, his work made us aware of the dangers of NEOs, and gave us a heads up on how to defend ourselves -- possibly the only natural disaster that we actually may be able to avoid, if we have enough time.

That, in and of itself, is pretty awesome.







And here's what's really going to blow your noodle ...

How do we know God didn't inspire Shoemaker, regardless of his personal beliefs?
(I have no idea what they were, btw, nor do I care.)


Here's the deal:

If ID had its way, people like Shoemaker would have to spend equal time with fucking morons who seem to want to say, "well, if it's our time, it's our time."

FUCK that.

God gave us a gift -- our brains. Pearls before swine, indeed, especially in the mirror, imho.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:While science on the other hand, no doubt will change. Hell, any number of major paradigms could change in the next 10-20 years.

How about questioning the basic paradigm that evelotion must have occured without any outside force directing it?

Blasphemy.

Depends on how you define "outside force." If there were any natural evidence for an "outside force," it would be seriously considered. Supernatural doesn't count, because by definition, it's not science, Dio.

Neither is Darwinism. Besides ID doesn't deal with the supernatural, just with the world as we see it.

You still keep trying to compare science to religion in terms of "blasphemy," on the science end.

Again, no problem with actual science. Just unproven, unprovable, unfalsifiable dogma like abiogenesis and speciation due to Darwinian forces alone.

Science doesn't work that way. Are there cliques among scientists? Of course. But that's about ego and reputation, not about the "blasphemy" of the scientific method. Huge difference, Dio.

When Gene Shoemaker first proposed that large impacts by asteroids and comets upon the Earth may have led to mass extinctions, including the end of the dinosaurs, were his ideas met with skepticism? OF COURSE. That's the way science works. But I highly doubt even Shoemaker's most ardent critics called him "blasphemous."

Pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

At the time Shoemaker presented his ideas, it was believed other phenomena led to mass extinctions, and that asteroid and comet impacts were RARE upon the Earth. Shoemaker spent YEARS taking samples, all over the world, trying to show -- through measurements of elements that could have only been created by the force of impacts -- that indeed, there is evidence of large impact craters, all over the Earth, before he presented his ideas, and had tons of data to back it up. (not to mention later Satellite images)

Within a few years, the entire paradigm shifted, especially when the comet, partially named after him, slammed into Jupitor. Then we finally began to take NEOs seriously.

Does this in any way shape or form, rattle my faith?

You're joking, right? Why should it?

As far as I'm concerned, his work made us aware of the dangers of NEOs, and gave us a heads up on how to defend ourselves -- possibly the only natural disaster that we actually may be able to avoid, if we have enough time.

That, in and of itself, is pretty awesome.







And here's what's really going to blow your noodle ...

How do we know God didn't inspire Shoemaker, regardless of his personal beliefs?
(I have no idea what they were, btw, nor do I care.)


Here's the deal:

If ID had its way, people like Shoemaker would have to spend equal time with fucking morons who seem to want to say, "well, if it's our time, it's our time."

FUCK that.

God gave us a gift -- our brains. Pearls before swine, indeed, especially in the mirror, imho.

You have it backwards. If the scientific community in Shoemaker's day would have been similar to today's 'scientists', he would have been outcast, smeared, ostricized, and classified as a religious nut.

Diogenes wrote:You have it backwards. If the scientific community in Shoemaker's day would have been similar to today's 'scientists', he would have been outcast, smeared, ostricized, and classified as a religious nut.

Shoemaker died in 1997, bro., in a car wreck, at age 69.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:You have it backwards. If the scientific community in Shoemaker's day would have been similar to today's 'scientists', he would have been outcast, smeared, ostricized, and classified as a religious nut.

Shoemaker died in 1997, bro., in a car wreck, at age 69.

RIP. The point still stands.

Personally, if I need any evidence of divine design in the universe, I just have to look to then left of my posts.

fukk shoemaker. I wanna hear eddie arcaro's take on comets crashing into shit.