Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2015, 10:52 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 10:43 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Not for magic claims. I could claim to do magic right now, and you wouldn't believe me, so obviously first hand accounts alone are not sufficient.

A reptile-bird transformation IS a magic claim...and you have no problem with that. Life from nonlife is a magic claim, and you have no problem with that. A man can't rise from the dead, but inanimate matter can come to life?

It blows my mind.

It's only 'magic' if you're too much of an uneducated ignorant fuck to learn how it is quite evidently not magic, and we have very good evidence for it. Facepalm

You fundamentally do not understand evolution, and what's more, you never will.

[Image: tumblr_nfrn4gAJSz1tcsrnwo1_1280.jpg?.jpg]

You are the poster child for ignorance, because of all the things you simply won't let yourself know. Congrats you stupid fuck.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 11:45 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 10:43 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... Do you... not know what a pseudepigraph is? Undecided

No.

Are you often in the habit of disagreeing with things, without knowing what they mean?

Quote:Yeah, I know that...but why would they claim that Paul's friend wrote it, instead of saying that Paul wrote it himself?

Because the name was already on the book, just as a traditional name, before the claim that it was Paul's friend was even uttered. The gospel was attributed to Luke, where Luke is just a plug name to differentiate it from the other gospels, and then the claim that it was the Luke was added later. If they wanted to claim that it was Paul, they'd first have to arbitrarily strip away the first name; this was a claim of convenience.

Quote:Dude, I was refuting these same petty objections that was raised in the other forum we were on regarding these same topics...so you aren't relaying anything new to me...so don't flatter yourself, buddy.

Are you often in the habit of being wrong on purpose?

Quote:Umm, my point was the Gospels aren't the earliest sources we have of the Resurrection account, the Epistles are. So in other words, we have sources regarding the Resurrection from someone who wasn't even a follower of Jesus, even before the biographies of were written.

So, as I said, you have one claim, and several second hand claims. I don't understand why you even objected in the first place.

Quote:Dude, first off, the beginning of the very book and chapter we are talking about starts off with "Paul, an apostle"...I simply forgot to close the quotation after "Peter", but of course I know that Paul wrote Galatians...if Paul is testifying that he spent time with Peter, then Paul has a first hand account of an actual eyewitness of Jesus/Resurrection. So there isn't this second-hand/third-hand bullshit that you are making it to be.

Paul relating the story to other people would make it a second hand account, since the story comes to us through two sets of hands, you simpleton. Dodgy

Quote:Nonsense. In Galatians, Paul stated that he first went to Arabia and then to Damascus...Luke's account skips over the Arabia bit and jumps right into when he arrived in Damascus. In other words, he was unknown at FIRST, but once he went to Damascus (9:19), where he began to preach in the synagogues and he eventually went to Jerusalem and joined the disciples.

Sort of like how Judas hung himself and then had his body split open. It's fun, seeing you guys bend over backwards for this shit. Rolleyes

Quote:Are you assuming that it was a lie, thus fallaciously begging the question?

I don't need to beg the question when we know that the people originating the claims that specific biblical figures wrote the gospels began making these claims in the second century, long after anyone was in a position to know, and that those claims were highly convenient, that the traditional names added to the books just happened to exactly match, like that. Rolleyes

Quote:Ohhh, so the fact that you "have your reasons" for NOT believing..you are admitting that your reasons is not much of an argument...fortunately for me, I don't share that belief, so it doesn't apply to me, but since you apparently have that belief, you've just admitting that your reasons for not believing is not much of an argument Laughat

Listen, you crowing fool: the content of the reasons would be an argument, but just stating that they must have had reasons is not.

Quote:"I don't have any, so look up pseudepigrapha while I stall just a little bit longer".

If you won't look up what the relevant terms mean, it's no wonder that your questions are so malformed. What you asked me was in no way germane to what I actually said, which is why I asked that you look it up; the fact that you're willing to wallow in your ignorance and continue to mistake what I said for something else speaks volumes for your arguments.

Quote:Again, you are fallaciously assuming that they were lying.

No, I'm not, but I am pointing out that "this would be a much better story than this one!" is not a reason to believe that the first story is true.

Quote: You don't have any counter-evidence against their claims, so at best all you can say is "we don't know"...but if you are calling them liars, that is a claim of knowledge, as if you have some kind of counter-evidence against their claims...you obviously don't have such evidence, so you are committing the obvious fallacy of begging the question.

Could you do me a favor and at least attempt to follow the line of argumentation, rather than just making up new shit on the fly?

Quote:You are making it seem as if their "tradition" is false by default. Newsflash for you, buddy...a tradition could be based on truth. Apparently this possibility isn't even considered in your closed mind. Again, TRADITION COULD BE BASED ON TRUTH. I don't know where you are getting this fallacious idea that "since it was tradition, it is false".

That's not what I was saying. What I was saying, was that the names were added for one reason (church tradition) and then much later, the claim that those names actually belonged to the disciples was added on top; there's no connection between the two, and the people making the second claim were in no position to know that.

It's like if I had a book, and the only author name on the book was "Ben," and then you started demanding, based on nothing more than that one name, that the book must have been written by Ben Kingsley: how are you in any position to know that?

Quote:Dude, it was a yes or no question that didn't require a bullshit paragraph of a response. But wait a minute, so you "dont know or care what the disciples believed", but you "know" that the early church lied about who wrote the Gospels?? Laugh out load

You are more up and down than a damn roller coaster.

Given that the two claims aren't remotely linked, there's no conflict there.

Quote:I've never heard of grave robbers that not only steals the treasures of the tomb, but also take the dead bodies as well. These kind of robbers would put the old Egyptian tomb robbers to shame Laugh out load

So because you've never heard of it, it could never happen anywhere in recorded history? That speaks more for your ignorance, than it does for the state of reality: clearly, you've never heard of body snatching.

Quote:Ok, so you choose not to deal with the content of what was said. Ok, movingo n.

You didn't say anything with content, that was the point of my observation.

Quote:So grave robbers broke into the tomb, stole the body, and his disciples happen to meet with a guy that looked like Jesus...and this Jesus look-a-like had a fully restored body after being whipped and beaten? Laughat

Ok, dude.

... Why would a Jesus lookalike even have the wounds that Jesus had to begin with? That doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Got any proof that magic is even possible?

*Braces for incoming tu coque fallacy dodge*

Got any proof of life from nonlife?

Nailed it. Why do you think playing directly into my hands like that was a smart thing to do?

Quote:Nonsense. You are asking me for evidence of what I claim to be supernatural, and I am asking you for evidence for what you claim to be natural...now, the natural is supposed to be the EASY thing to explain, and you can't even give me that much...yet you have the nerve to ask for proof of the supernatural??? Mannn please.

If you believe in the supernatural without evidence, you're being irrational. And before you open your trap, I'd remind you that your inability to properly represent or understand the evidence for natural things, does not mean it ceases to exist.

Quote:
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do you accept other purported historical accounts that contain magic, or not?

No.

So why is the Jesus story a special exemption? That's called special pleading, chump.

Quote:
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Luke wouldn't know shit. It wasn't even written by Luke.

Yes it was.

Not according to your own church history, and the consensus of biblical scholars. Do you think you're smarter than them?

Quote:Who said it should happen, atheists believe it DID happen. I don't believe either.

Lying about what we believe is profoundly dishonest, so I'm not at all surprised you'd persist in that.

Quote:
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Not for magic claims. I could claim to do magic right now, and you wouldn't believe me, so obviously first hand accounts alone are not sufficient.

A reptile-bird transformation IS a magic claim...and you have no problem with that. Life from nonlife is a magic claim, and you have no problem with that. A man can't rise from the dead, but inanimate matter can come to life?

It blows my mind.

Answer for the point I made above, don't just tu coque dodge your way around it. If you won't accept my claims of doing magic, then obviously not all first hand accounts are sufficient for you to believe them, so why special plead in favor of the bible?

Quote:
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Natural things. That doesn't matter: I've made the claim, under your own argument you now have to believe it until you can prove it conclusively false.

Huh?

You specifically said that you'll believe claims until they're proven false. I've made a claim, and now you have to give up christianity and believe it until you can prove it false.

Quote:
(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are all visions Jesus?

No.

So then why assume this specific vision was actually Jesus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
05-04-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are you often in the habit of disagreeing with things, without knowing what they mean?

Orginally, you said "epigraph", which I do know what it means...then you changed it to "pseudepigraph", which looks like "epigraph" after it ate three cans of spinach and started taking steroids.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Because the name was already on the book, just as a traditional name, before the claim that it was Paul's friend was even uttered.

Right, and that's the freakin' point...why in the hell would a guy named Luke, who wasn't an apostle, he wasn't a follower of Jesus, he never met Jesus, didn't know Jesus...why in the HELL would anyone attribute the name of "Luke" to a BIOGRAPHY of Jesus Christ??

They could have traditionally attributed any one of the other 9 disciples (if you exclude Matthew, John, and Judas), to the book...any one of the other colorful characters in the Bible...but they choose....the lesser known........Luke.

Hell, they could have just said Paul wrote it, 1/3 of the book is about him anyway. Instead they choose....Luke. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. And then you say his name was "traditionally" attached to it...well, that only means that the tradition goes back even early than the ECF's, right, which mean's that that the book was written early...so hey, good point you made there Laugh out load

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  The gospel was attributed to Luke

So of the 9 remaining disciples, they choose....Luke, bypassing Peter, James, Philip, Thomas, Paul...and choose...Luke Laugh out load

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , where Luke is just a plug name to differentiate it from the other gospels

Yeah, because Peter would have been a terrible plug name for the book...the less known Luke fits PERFECTLY.

I am being sarcastic, btw.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , and then the claim that it was the Luke was added later.

Yeah, so they, for some reason, falsely attributed the Gospel of Luke to some mysterious guy of the same name, coincidentally, with the same name of whom Paul just happen to be a companion with. Got it.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If they wanted to claim that it was Paul, they'd first have to arbitrarily strip away the first name; this was a claim of convenience.

Umm, what?

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are you often in the habit of being wrong on purpose?

I am so wrong, and you are so right, huh Laugh out load

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So, as I said, you have one claim, and several second hand claims.

The entire genre of history is based on second (or more) hand claims. Only when it comes to the Bible do people want play "Superrrrrr Skepticccccc".

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Paul relating the story to other people would make it a second hand account, since the story comes to us through two sets of hands, you simpleton. Dodgy

Yeah, Paul relating the story to other people would make it a second hand account, in the same way that a news reporter's column in a newspaper makes it a "second hand" account.

What I find amazing is that you sit there and say "second hand account"...the way you are objecting to a second hand account, I would have thought that it was a fifth or sixth hand account. Since when is a second hand account not good enough???

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Sort of like how Judas hung himself and then had his body split open.

Stranger things have happened, you know, how nonliving material can come to life and start talking and shit.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's fun, seeing you guys bend over backwards for this shit. Rolleyes

It is just about as fun seeing you guys bend over backwards for evolution.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  I don't need to beg the question when we know that the people originating the claims that specific biblical figures wrote the gospels began making these claims in the second century, long after anyone was in a position to know, and that those claims were highly convenient, that the traditional names added to the books just happened to exactly match, like that. Rolleyes

Nonsense. You said that the names were traditionally attached, which is independent of whether or not it is true/false that the names are of the men that actually wrote it.

So in other words, you don't know who wrote them? Do you?

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Listen, you crowing fool: the content of the reasons would be an argument, but just stating that they must have had reasons is not.

Straw man. I wasn't using it as an argument...I merely stated that they attributed names to the books because they had reasons too, obviously.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If you won't look up what the relevant terms mean, it's no wonder that your questions are so malformed. What you asked me was in no way germane to what I actually said, which is why I asked that you look it up; the fact that you're willing to wallow in your ignorance and continue to mistake what I said for something else speaks volumes for your arguments.

Nonsense. As mentioned earlier, we were talking about Luke 1:1-3, and you mentioned something about an epigraph, which is EXACTLY what Luke 1:1-3 is...and now you are talking about some other stuff, which looks like the word "epigraph" on steroids. I don't know nor do I care what it means. The text is what it is....now of course, any super skeptic can come along and make all kinds of bullshit accusations...but that is all part of the super skeptics code when it comes to the Bible..."believe nothing, deny everything".

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  No, I'm not, but I am pointing out that "this would be a much better story than this one!" is not a reason to believe that the first story is true.

It is also no reason to believe the first story is false, either. Of all that has ever been claimed is that of the four Gospels, two were written by disciples, and the other two were written by friends of the disciples. That has absolutely no theological implications whatsoever, but of course, the super skeptic following the code is going to pitch a bitch about even something as genuinely innocent as "of all 11 disciples, two wrote Gospels...and the other two were written by their friends".

Reminds me of when Jesus told Nicodemus "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how will you believe if I speak of heavenly things" (John 3:12).

You can't even accept the simple shit...so of course stuff like the Resurrection is light years away.

Quote: You don't have any counter-evidence against their claims, so at best all you can say is "we don't know"...but if you are calling them liars, that is a claim of knowledge, as if you have some kind of counter-evidence against their claims...you obviously don't have such evidence, so you are committing the obvious fallacy of begging the question.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Could you do me a favor and at least attempt to follow the line of argumentation, rather than just making up new shit on the fly?

Let me see if I get this straight...you said "they were lying about Luke writing the Gospel of Luke".

I said "You don't have any evidence that they were lying, so all you can say is "we don't know who wrote the book".

And you say "Rather than just making shit up on the fly, could you follow the line of argumentation".

So how is responding directly to what you said an example of "making shit up on the fly"?

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  That's not what I was saying. What I was saying, was that the names were added for one reason (church tradition) and then much later, the claim that those names actually belonged to the disciples was added on top; there's no connection between the two, and the people making the second claim were in no position to know that.

Well, that is your opinion. Don't make it seem as if that is the truth. How about just saying "I THINK", or "I BELIEVE"....don't make it seem as if what you are claiming is a brute fact, and what you are presenting is the truth.

Not to mention the fact that, again, the tradition that you speak of could be the truth. Even if it was church tradition, you are not in any position to say whether the tradition stemmed from a lie, or stemmed from the truth.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's like if I had a book, and the only author name on the book was "Ben," and then you started demanding, based on nothing more than that one name, that the book must have been written by Ben Kingsley: how are you in any position to know that?

Poor analogy. The Gospels are anonymous, bro. So for you to use an example of a book with the name "on it" such as "Ben", doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

Second, it is just a bullshit theory. So you are saying church tradition attributed the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John", right? These names had no connection with anyone whatsoever.....but just by mere coincidence, Jesus did have a disciple named Matthew, Peter did have a friend named Mark, Paul did have a companion named Luke, and Jesus did have a disciple named John? And the ECF just erroneously put 2 and 2 together???

I've heard of better 9/11 conspiracy theories than that Laugh out load

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Given that the two claims aren't remotely linked, there's no conflict there.

Yes they are, because on one hand you are admitting your ignorance, and on the other hand you are making claims of knowledge, which you are unable to back up with evidence. So, since it is clear that you are ignorant regarding both claims, why not just be consistent in your admittance of ignorance?

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So because you've never heard of it, it could never happen anywhere in recorded history? That speaks more for your ignorance, than it does for the state of reality: clearly, you've never heard of body snatching.

So they stole the body, and then coincidentally there was a Jesus look-a-like that appeared to them, and they believed that he has risen physically from the dead, despite previously stealing the body...Laugh out load

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  You didn't say anything with content, that was the point of my observation.

Then I shouldn't have gotten the whole "scoffing is not an argument" nonsense, then.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... Why would a Jesus lookalike even have the wounds that Jesus had to begin with? That doesn't make any sense.

Good question. But then again, why would a Jesus lookalike ascend into heaven, too (Luke 24: 50-51), or miraculously help the disciples catch fish (John 21) Laugh out load

So not only did the Jesus lookalike actually look like him, he also did some of the same stuff that Jesus did before he died, making it the biggest coincidence in the history of coincidences Laugh out load

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ]
Nailed it. Why do you think playing directly into my hands like that was a smart thing to do?

So asking you for scientific evidence for something that you claimed occurred naturally...that is playing into your hands?

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If you believe in the supernatural without evidence, you're being irrational. And before you open your trap, I'd remind you that your inability to properly represent or understand the evidence for natural things, does not mean it ceases to exist.

I do have evidence. But your evidence is supposed to be based on observation, experiment, and prediction..all of which you have neither.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So why is the Jesus story a special exemption? That's called special pleading, chump.

Because there is more evidence for Jesus/Resurrection than those other jokers.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Not according to your own church history, and the consensus of biblical scholars. Do you think you're smarter than them?

This is just one of those things regarding history where they agree to disagree. No biggie.

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Lying about what we believe is profoundly dishonest, so I'm not at all surprised you'd persist in that.

So atheists don't believe that life came from nonlife and reptiles evolved into birds???

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Answer for the point I made above, don't just tu coque dodge your way around it. If you won't accept my claims of doing magic, then obviously not all first hand accounts are sufficient for you to believe them, so why special plead in favor of the bible?

I already said that the historical evidence for Jesus/Resurrection has me convinced. At least there is evidence that has been presented for my claims, what is your evidence that life can come from nonlife?

(04-04-2015 11:45 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So then why assume this specific vision was actually Jesus?

Because I don't think/believe Paul was lying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 12:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 11:09 PM)Dusky Wrote:  I've watched that debate countless of times and I love it. Really though, it's a debate between 2 biologists and for some reason an engineer thrown in. Where exactly does Kent "demolish" them?

If any post could be used to demonstrate that the winner of debates is truly in the eye/ear of the beholder, it is this one.

True, lots of debates are. With this debate in particular, however, Kent somehow decides that evolution is 6 different types of things. Some of which I could agree with, then there is the final portion of macro evolution. His concept of macro evolution is so incorrect, that he is arguing against a form of evolution that most "evolutionists" do not even hold. He builds up what he thinks macro evolution is, then proceeds to knock down his own idea of it.

(04-04-2015 12:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 11:09 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Can you point out a single argument Kent uses that just completely destroys the theory?

I've read over this thread a few times and it actually sparked enough interest for me to create an account.

The fundamental lack of knowledge you have on the subject is pretty laughable, and what tops it off is you think you are somehow "winning" against the evolutionists. Did you happen to read the link I posted earlier?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...2214010471

It's a great read since you claim there cannot be a link between dinosaurs and birds. The evidence is clearly laid out, and you can actually go through the sources to learn more. Fascinating stuff. Sadly though, you won't take the time to read it and will just dismiss it as propaganda, most likely. =/

Hey, if you honestly think that Kent didn't demolish those jokers, then...more power to you...I aint mad at cha...aint got nothing but love for ya Thumbsup

Yeah I know I'm back-tracking here. Takes me a couple days to get the time to be able to post.

He demolished his own construct of what he thinks evolution is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: Question about flood
Burning a strawman is like crucifing a fictional character.

Oh wait, now I see where the problem lies.

Christians believe their own bullshit to be true, so any strawman they create is now fact.

It all makes sense now.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2015, 09:31 PM
RE: Question about flood
You keep talking about life coming from non-living matter and how it's impossible. It's so possible, there's actually a name for it. It's called Abiogenesis. RNA, or ribonucleic acid, is not alive. It stores genetic data, like DNA. RNA has been observed, in a test tube, copying itself as well as evolving in the process. It's also the best current guess as to where we came from. You've made it clear that you have a tenuous understanding of the theory of evolution. As I told you before, it's a tree, not a ladder. You've asked how monkeys are still here if we came from monkeys. This displays a basic lack of knowledge on how evolution works. It's like saying that we came from dirt, why is there still dirt around?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BeardFist McFistBeard's post
05-04-2015, 10:13 PM
RE: Question about flood
(05-04-2015 09:31 PM)BeardFist McFistBeard Wrote:  You've asked how monkeys are still here if we came from monkeys. This displays a basic lack of knowledge on how evolution works. It's like saying that we came from dirt, why is there still dirt around?

If the American colonists came from Europe, how come there are still Europeans?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-04-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: Question about flood
(05-04-2015 10:13 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-04-2015 09:31 PM)BeardFist McFistBeard Wrote:  You've asked how monkeys are still here if we came from monkeys. This displays a basic lack of knowledge on how evolution works. It's like saying that we came from dirt, why is there still dirt around?

If the American colonists came from Europe, how come there are still Europeans?

If plant energy comes from the sun, why is there still a sun?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
06-04-2015, 06:00 AM
RE: Question about flood
If my cousin and I share 99.99 % of our DNA and we both have the same grandfather, why do I still have cousins ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
06-04-2015, 06:02 AM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 06:00 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If my cousin and I share 99.99 % of our DNA and we both have the same grandfather, why do I still have cousins ?

Aaand full circle back to the moneys.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: