What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
858 Comments
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -48/+410The above posts from Kingleo are from a creationist who believes that the biblical account of the creation in Genesis is based on sound science. They use false or distorted evidence and call it "creation science" to prove that the theory of evolution is incorrect - they usually copy and paste material from creationist websites, with little understanding of what they are copying. The material on creationist websites is usually dressed up in scientific language, but the science is often incorrect, and usually ignores evidence that disagrees with their ideas. A number of creationist websites have been found to contain bad misquotes, material taken out of context and even outright lies.
The poster of the original question usually fails to respond to replies, or quotes the bible as 'scientific' evidence. Many of them consider that scientists who do not agree with Genesis are part of an atheist conspiracy to try to disprove the existence of God.
If you think this poster has posed a question worth answering, first check your forehead (you may be feeling a little feverish). If you find that you are not suffering a viral infection, check out the website Talk Origins (a google search will find it for you), and if that doesn't help, post your own question here and we will attempt to give you an answer that contains some genuine, unbiased science.
Science never claims to have all the answers or to be 100% right about anything. That is why it works. Someone has a good idea, with some small inaccuracies, someone else develops it further, removing more inaccuracies. The original author accepts this and tries to improve it himself.
Darwin invented the theory before DNA was discovered. Before hundreds of new ways of investigating the evidence was found. And everything, EVERYTHING that has been found confirms that the idea of descent with natural selection is correct.
The human eye is a great example of evolution. It shows that evolution can only work with what was originally present, hence why the cones and rods are facing INTO the skull, not out of, and the blood and nerve supply is inbetween them and the light.... which, if it were designed, would be evidence of retarded design.
@dimensiono; there is a part in TOE where the superiority of the white man is 'mentioned' - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -32/+244" In Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species" he says that black people are underevolved."
Please quote the relevant portion of the book wheren this claim is made.
You aren't lying, are you? - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -22/+218Darwin wasn't right about everything, he just had some very very insightful ideas. Unfortunately he lived at a time when racist and sexist beliefs* were widespread throughout the population. That's not an excuse, just a mitigating circumstance.
*although I don't recall sexism in his books. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -7/+145"We could go back and forth all day, but at the end what you and I believe is irrelevant... what's relevant is what is the truth, period. When we die, we'll know for sure. If evolution is true, then that's the end for us. If creationism is true, then that's a whole new beginning."
In addition to changing the subject to avoid admitting that you lied and invoking the false dichotomy fallacy of Pascal's Wager, you appear to have conflated acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism. Not all who accept the theory of evolution as valid are atheists, nor do they universally lack belief in an afterlife. Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -29/+149Also, the claim that the only alternative to evolution is a total lie. There are hundreds of alternatives, none of which explain the fact of evolution better than the theory of evolution. (This statement may seem confusing. That animal species change over time is an undisputed fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact by positing that lifeforms which survived better due to inheritable traits left more descendants than those with less advantageous traits. An alternative is Lamarckism, which claims that individuals change over time due to using certain parts of their body more. For example, a giraffe, under Lamarckism, got its long neck by continuously stretching to reach higher branches, and passed this on to its descendants.)
It should be noted that creationism doesn't explain ANYTHING, it simply answers an unknown with another unknown. It makes no testable or falsifiable claims, and is therefore not science. Even if it were, there are thousands of creation myths on the earth, from the belief that the world was created by one god castrating another, to the belief that it was found fully formed in the navel of a giant earwig at four-thirty one Vroonday afternoon. Each of these beliefs, including creationism, has exactly the same evidence - zero. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+123(on the claim that Darwin was racist)
1) Regardless of whether or not it's valid, what does this accusation have to do with whether or not Darwin's theories are valid? This is like stating that Protestantism is Anti-Semitic because Martin Luther held anti-Semitic views.
2) By contemporary standards, Darwin probably would be considered racist (and at the very least a racialist). However, by the standards of his day, Darwin was remarkably egalitarian and progressive, inasmuch as he was a staunch opponent of slavery and had compassion for members of other races and felt they should have legal rights. It is important to point out that in Darwin's day, even the most famous and progressive African-American civil rights leaders (W.E.B. DuBois, for example) still believed that the different races were distinct and had different "characters" as a people.
3) Since this Creationist argument is implicitly dependent on the proposition that the racism of a theory's proponents is a valid reason to reject a theory, it is worth noting that a number of prominent Creationists have been racist. The list includes Louis Agassiz, who denied that blacks and whites were even of the same species; George MacCready Price, who held that Negroes were a degenerate form of ***** sapiens; and Henry Morris, who, in 1976, argued that the "genetic character" of "Hamites" is such that they are often "displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites". Indeed, the religious alternatives to Darwin's theories during his time were not racially egalitarian at all: the major debate until Darwin was whether Africans were a separate species created inferior, or whether they represented a more advanced state of "decay" form of the original purer race of human being.
4) Darwin in The Descent of Man (chapter 7), after much consideration, concluded that all human races were probably the same species. He used the word "sub-species" for races, to designate that there were different varieties which did not differ significantly enough to be considered independent species. He thus undercut one of the major arguments for racism. Later discoveries by evolutionary biologists would further fatally undercut any scientific basis for racism by showing just how similar and united the human species is, especially when compared to other far more diverse species.
(from Evo wiki) - Dainjah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+89What the ***** does 'under-evolved' even mean? Everything that is alive today and reproducing is evolved enough to survive in its environment. Although humans like to think so, intelligence is not the end-game for evolution. If a global catastrophic event occurred, humans would most likely be wiped out but cockroaches would survive. Does that make cockroaches more evolved that us?
- D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -22/+98kingleo,
As a creationist, it seems you don't understand the concept of science. Unlike you religious folk, we feel that we don't need to believe an entire book no matter what it says. It happened that Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. You saying that not everything in his book was valid does not disprove his ideas that are supported by evidence. We don't need to go on the defensive about our "faith" in Darwin if a fact is proven incorrect.
A false analogy:
creationists:bible::evolutionists:Darwin's body of work - mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -23/+93I'm an atheist, for the record.
However, intelligent design cannot be disproven. I say again, it CAN'T be disproven, which is why it's an article of faith. I don't believe it personally, but belief is all we have. You believe it is true, you believe it is false, or maybe you aren't sure, but no proof will ever come to settle that question. We can only go with what we can see, what we can feel, and what seems rights. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -22/+92"I don't have exact quotes for the racist part at this time, but if you find Darwin's "The Descent of Man" you'll find it."
You originally claimed that the quotes were in "On the Origin of Species". Were you lying? You stated that Darwin wrote that blacks are "unevolved" in "The Origin of Species". Why did you say this if you are unable to substantiate this claim?
Why do you not provide relevant citations for your claims? Are your claims not honest?
"So... Darwinism in its core is sexist and racist... I don't care what the culture was back then, science is science and it shouldn't reflect your personal beliefs or culture. It should only reflect facts."
You have yet to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is "sexist and racist" at its core. Note that merely asserting such is not actually evidence.
"Many evolutionists (I'd have to research some to get the exact quotes, but I know this for a fact) feel that evolution is a joke, but they support it only because the only other theory is creationism, and of curse, to them this is unthinkable."
Thus far you have provided absolutely no evidence to your claims. Why should you be believed? - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -21/+80Crap, that should read "Also, the claim that the only alternative to evolution is creationism is a total lie."
Some people who don't understand evolution, possibly because of an upbringing in certain US states :P may not understand the difference between my example of Lamarckism and "the theory of evolution." In the theory of evolution, giraffes which were born with longer necks were able to eat leaves that competitors couldn't, so they survived better.
Other competing theories that have been discarded because they do not fit the observed facts include Lysenkoism and Orthogenesis. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+61"I'm not racist, but who says that some races AREN'T under evolved. "
Anyone who understands that "under evolved" is not a scientific concept. Evolution has neither direction nor goal, thus it is impossible to claim that any given genetic makeup is "more" or "less" evolved than another. - VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48Most scientists don't just guess how old something is based on how old it "looks".
Carbon dating shouldn't be affected by an object being submerged in water. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+56"These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
So it's about keeping the seats full and the collection plate filled is it?
Why not let humans look at evidence, and let faith in unproven, possibly made up "gods" fall where it may?
Since the invention of recording devices, any "revelations" from God could be recorded and transmitted as evidence to each and every one of us. Why are we still focused on old books written by men, rather then seeking proof for or against (like this skeleton).
http://flushaholybook.com - thirdman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48No, no it isn't. ID is just creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific babble to confuse the credulous & try to introduce creationism via the back door.
http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk/ - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43I love how people can believe that two modern humans were magically created and we're all descendants from these two people and say science and evolution is "silly" with a straight face.
He hit the nail on the head with his second statement, though... "It's killing our faith". Deeply-religious people are far too frightened and angered by change. If God was indeed real and appeared on Earth tomorrow, would the atheists still deny his existence? No; with truth and reality presented, most intelligent people accept it.
The fact of the matter is, more and more of our world is being explained, and religious beliefs created to explain questions in the past are being exposed for what they are - myths. The Romans believed in Zeus... the Norse in Odin. The Christian belief in Adam and Eve is no different. Some people just cling onto what they were told as a child like a security blanket because they don't like the alternative. - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39@joclime
No, no it isn't. Things preserved in marshland are usually preserved due to being trapped in an oxygen free environment. This means they would appear younger than they are as far as "normal" decay is concerned.
Relative to carbon dating it makes no difference. The half life of the relevant carbon isotopes is unaffected by being in marshland. - kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44@ Dimensio
I'm digging you for calling him in regard to Pascals Wager. I'd + you more if I could just for knowing about it.
@ kingleo
You could not be more wrong concerning the relevence of what people believe. What we believe in matters GREATLY. Why do you suppose we debate with each other? Would you care if the whole world suddenly became sociopathic hedonists that believed it is ok to rape, torture and kill anyone that crossed their path? I bet you would. It matters to me too, because I dread each day the indoctrination children are subjected to for years until they feel the need to justify their groundless beliefs in divinity or otherwise. Smart people lied to so long that they have to think up every possible justification for beliefs they now hold that they didn't even come up with. So no kingleo, belief matters greatly. - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45There is no need to disprove intelligent design. There is no evidence. It is a belief based entirely on stories with zero empirical evidence. Natural selection is an established scientific theory with numerous testable examples ranging from the domestication of animals and plants to application of environmental stresses on bacteria.
There are mountains of evidence for natural selection. There is NO evidence for intelligent design. - joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -36/+72I'm not racist, but who says that some races AREN'T under evolved. Speculation as to which ones aside, does it not make sense that some cultures and areas of the world would necessitate, and hence yield, differing levels of intelligence? Perhaps no one is under evolved, maybe Africans are better suited to an African landscape where hunting and running would be more useful, and Europeans are better suited for Europe, where building homes to shield cold and otherwise advancing technology would be more useful?
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -11/+45"This skeleton effectively PROVES evolution without a doubt"
Umm. Pretty much everyone believes that things evolve (even creationists.) This however does NOT prove that man evolved from apes... - waylander632, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41Retsudo, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
I believe in God but I also accept evolution as a concrete scientific principle and anyone who argues against it in favor of ridiculous psuedoscientfic fantasies are being superstitious rather than religious. I do not think God would create a completely rational universe that conforms to observable rules and then decide that humans and animals should appear spontaneously by magic. I have read the Bible and it is chock-full of metaphors, analogies, and allegories, and cannot be taken literally. It would just be ridiculous. Just because we evolved doesn't mean there is no God, have some faith. - Kakcoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35OMG! The prankster god is at it again!
- hoojoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30@ mattshoppes' buried comment
Taken from the first link the google provided when i searched for "carbon dating penguin":
"The oceans are a large depository of carbon, including 14C. When ocean circulation slows, the stockpile of C held by the ocean grows. And when ocean circulations speeds up, that stockpiled C re-enters the atmosphere, depleted in 14C because of the long time it takes water to move through the oceans. For example, the water that comes to the surface around Antarctica began it's journey in the Arctic Ocean, thousands of miles and hundreds of years earlier. Plants and animals that absorb the depleted 14C will appear much older than they are. Antarctic penguins, for example, consume and absorb carbon so depleted in 14C that 1 yr. old penguins have radiocarbon ages of 1000-1300 years old."
Feel free to continue to wallow in your own ignorance. But please don't try to infect everyone else with it. - Lamtd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32"And the odds of us evolving out of it were even less"
Well, maybe that's why it took us a little while to evolve, uh ?
Besides, considering the huge amount of galaxies that exists, it would have been more like against the odds that it doesn't happen on at least one planet. It's not as if there was only 8 planets in the whole universe.
By the way, what does the Bible says about the other planets ? So god put life on Earth, and then put 7 other empty planets in the neighbourhood just for fun ? How about the gazillion of other planets, suns, galaxies, etc. out there ? Was it made only so that the astronomers have something to look at during summer nights ? That sure does sound like an _intelligent_ design to me... - openfly, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34brstilson,
If there was a shortage of food, Giraffes with short necks would be more likely to starve to death, while those with longer necks might survive by reaching to the top of the tallest trees. They would then pass on their "long-necked" genes. Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest, whatever - it's still Evolution. - emailingRob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Am I the only one who agrees that "Ancient Skeleton Disproves Intelligent Design- Religious Leaders Pissed" is the best title ever? Should be on the front page in the opening credits of American Dad.
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Who decides what in the Bible should be taken literally or metaphorically, and where in the book does God say that things there are metaphors?
It is all too convenient to cherry-pick whatever you consider convenient in the Bible, and ignore/twist everything else, isn't it?...sorry for being so direct but this sounds intellectually dishonest to me. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32@gameboyhippo:
Could you explain how your one alleged non-Biblical historical reference to Jesus (which is a known forgery, and not an actual writing of Josephus, who himself did not live at the time of Christ and as such could not be considered a contemporaneous account even if it were not a fraud) relates to a discussion of the theory of evolution? - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29If the odds of life appearing out of nowhere are 1/100 billion, what are the odds of a sentient, eternal, omniscient and omnipresent deity appear out of nowhere, shouldn't it be even bigger, therefore, even harder to you to accept?
You put yourself in a paradox. - Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
"... killing our faith and reducing the amount of power I have over 10million gullible sheep".
Yes I'm sure he is propagating his cult for the betterment of mankind. What a bastard. - themacx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30"Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account in the Bible that God created the world in six days. Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man appearing 6,000 years later. He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! what a joke! - Elbart, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31The fact that there is even a discussion about debunking Intelligent Design...
It's a friggin' STORY!
Let those religious lunatic believe what they want.
Hail XENU! - jonellison13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25As a Christian, I'd like to state that nothing can be proved about our origins from the bible, and I for one, look to science to show us how we were made. There are a great deal of Christians that are afraid of evolution because it might prove them wrong, but there are some Christians, like myself, that are not quick to jump to any conclusion, but to accept the facts as they are.
We are not *all* close-minded and stubborn. - john570, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Cmon people! We all came from Adam and woman was created from his rib. Oh and then there is the snake and the apple thing. Hey look there goes the three bears and a knight in shining armor....
/sarcasm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30Should be shortened to "Logic Disproves Intelligent Design - Religious Leaders Pissed"
- Foma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21@mattshoppes...
"I have no issue (I'm a Christian) with your giraffe thing.... that is if there was a shortage of food the long necked giraffes would survive because they could get more food. And they could pass this gene on and the long necked giraffes would survive."
First of all, I need to re-iterate here the distinction between the outdated Lamarckian theory of evolution, and Darwin's natural selection. What you're describing is natural selection, which is fine. You aren't confused about this. But using the giraffe-neck example in this way can make things a bit unclear for other people, because giraffe necks are usually used as an example of the Lamarckian theory, saying that a giraffe will bear offspring with longer necks if it actually stretched its own neck during its lifetime. (Almost) no one thinks this way any more. As I said, I know that you aren't confusing the two theories here, but I think there was some confusion earlier on in the comments.
"Guess what? This is HORIZONTAL evolution. The Giraffe is STILL a giraffe. It doesn't change into some other animal. HORIZONTAL evolution happens all the time. A species is not changing into another species."
A species is generally defined as a class of organisms which can interbreed to produce viable (fertile) offspring. Horses and asses can mate to produce mules, but mules are infertile, so horses and asses are not the same species. So "a species changing into another species" is not nearly as magical a process as you may think. Creationists often pretend that the definition of a species specifically *precludes* an organism bearing offspring of "a different species." Surely, then, we could not have evolved from apes. This is an a priori argument trying to make judgements about the observable world, and which *doesn't even use the correct definitions of terms.* Please understand this. - Alimack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19As Dimensio and I think a couple others have said, people tend to slightly misunderstand the concept of evolution. It's not progress towards perfection of any sort, merely adaptation to a creature's environment. So, to call a something "underevolved" isn't technically insulting (though it sounds like it) as it means that it was just better adapted to its environment sooner. Like crocodiles - hardly changed since the time of the dinosaurs, so are "underevolved" compared to mammals or birds, but it doesn't mean that they're a ***** animal.
As I understand it, human life started around what is Ethiopia today? And humans spread from there, adapting (evolving) as they went? So black-skinned humans were probably the first kind of human? Meaning that while white-skinned humans are "more evolved", in that we've changed more from the first, African humans, but it's not a good or bad thing. If you say that white people are mutant black people (roughly as accurate, mutation's linked to evolution) it sounds like white people are bad. Possibly just misinterpretation of language makes it sound racist.
Not that Darwin wasn't racist. By today's standards, I think everyone back then would have been racist, in that they had practically zero knowledge of people outside their country or continent. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20A creationist saying that Evolution is racist and sexist is the height of hilarity.
Have you even opened your 'good book' lately? - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18" They've been trying to "prove" evolution for years by piecing together bones found in different places from different things and they've all inevitably been confirmed as hoaxes so far. "
Please substantiate this claim with evidence. Provide documentation showing that all existing fossils have been confirmed as "hoaxes". - Tracon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"I mean, the odds of life alone were like 1/100Billion" and there are 10 billion suns and potently billions more planets in just our Galaxy alone so even with odds 1:100billion its no longer odds just a matter of waiting. If you look at the size and number of Galaxy's life is just a matter of time and no longer a matter odds. damn it lamtd got to it first
- steveatdownmix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24>> That depends greatly on your definition of intelligent design. Many commonly held versions can most certainly be disproved, including the theory that the earth is 5000 years old, man was put on this earth in his current form without evolving from any other species and that the earth was NOT created "in a day" out of nothing.
Evolution and Intelligent Design are NOT exclusive of eachother in the mind of a moderate Christian.
Just because the loudest preachers of Intelligent Design believe these things, doesn't mean that most of the Christian world believe it's true. More of the Christian world is more moderate than these nut-jobs and though they might believe in something like Intelligent Design, they offer a more moderate version of it that makes allowances for evolution & science. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18One galaxy can have as many as one trillion stars, and there are more than a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, so there is a high chance if we use your 1/100 billion number. And that's only observable universe. And the odds of us evolving out of it were obviously 1:1 since it happened :)
Next time try to learn basic facts before claiming that there must be some special being.
For me it's ridiculous to think that this being would create trillions of galaxies and stars and just focus one one planet, or even only on one particular group of people that has to worship it. Not to mention that this "being" would actually care to give us its "son" (after thousands of years of human existence) and ... I can't even continue because of laughter.
George Carlin summed it up nicely - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHlMs2rSIM - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21No, the ID movement was created by creationists when their attempt to remove science from the classrooms in the US was pwned by the supreme court. Nowadays there are advocates of each one who disagree with each other, but they are the same load of anti-scientific *****.
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Nobody who knows anything about the subject is giving any credence to the creationist's anti-scientific claims - they just want to stop them removing, challenging or disrupting real science. If they were just sitting in their churches talking about it to each other, and not forcing this ***** on other people, there wouldnt be a problem.
- SP420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I was just going to use that very quote. What a ***** moron, indeed. If it's these people who aren't a threat to the advancement of science and the greater public understanding it, I don't know what is.
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23@thirdman:
Actually, yes there is. There are two seperate (contradictory in order) accounts in genesis, and they are both wrong.
First story fact 1) : Humans didn't suddenly appear - they evolved from other apes. (Humans ARE apes, btw)
First story fact 2) : The order of life arising as depicted in genesis is wrong. Grass is a relative latecomer to the plant scene, and land plants arose after sea plants. Birds (fowl) didn't arise before, say, land animals. No mention of dinosaurs in the first genesis account
Second story: Man is created before alllllll the other animals. Then woman is created from his rib. Wrong.
That's just the basics but its pretty clear genesis gets the order of things completely wrong. - vigil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@ thirdman:
Not to be combative, but the literal Hebrew is (and excuse me for butchering the transliteration but I'm not quite savvy enough to figure out how to get Hebrew to print out on the web here): "vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom echad" or "It was evening, it was morning, day one (or one day)" roughly (***** 1:5). 'Yom' means 'day', in both ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew.
That said, it's not really a question as to the literal translation of the text, but our understanding of what a day is in the "life of god." As to which I believe...I'm stll on the fence.
@ kingleo:
My brain hurts man...I'm beyond words. - gadgetuk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Of course Darwin made mistakes, in both science and opinion. He was, after all, the very beginning of evolutionary science. How many other sciences have gone unrevised for centuries?
I am sure that diverse groups of *****-sapien have gone through more/less or larger/smaller evolutionary steps and these have affected both the physical appearance and inherent abilities of those races. I'm not just talking about black or white here, this is true down as far as family resemblance. Actually, "steps" is the wrong word, it's more analogue than that.
Whatever happens though, evolution as a theory is pretty darned close to the truth of the history of the human race and creationists are slowly coming round to the idea - after all, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas. The phrase "created in God's image" is misinterpreted as "We look like God", it has more subtle meaning like that. I'm no theologist but I take it to be more akin to our demeanor and our morals.
/not religious. - splinecl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@gameboyhippo
Haha, very funny. I hope your not serious :) -
Show 51 - 100 of 861 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is