But I, on the other hand, would make a terrifying reverend. When I am done with you, the weight of all your sins and despicable perversions shall be on your shoulders, and your shoulders alone.
Advertisement
by Hurdegaryp » Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:58 am
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by DesAnges » Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:58 am
Kannap wrote:DesAnges wrote:Are you a priest?
Well, boys are better than men in my opinion, in the meaning of the definition. "boy" represents most* males under 19 (or just over but look under 19), and Tom Daley is only 19 and continues to look under that age, so he can perfectly be referred to as a boy. I am 16, so I am attracted to boys ages 15-19. Unlike men who are over 25 that I am not attracted to often, minus a few celebrity exceptions.
*for lack of a better word
by Aequalitia » Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:58 am
by Divair » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:00 pm
Kannap wrote:DesAnges wrote:Are you a priest?
Well, boys are better than men in my opinion, in the meaning of the definition. "boy" represents most* males under 19 (or just over but look under 19), and Tom Daley is only 19 and continues to look under that age, so he can perfectly be referred to as a boy. I am 16, so I am attracted to boys ages 15-19. Unlike men who are over 25 that I am not attracted to often, minus a few celebrity exceptions.
*for lack of a better word
by Dumb Ideologies » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:00 pm
DesAnges wrote:Kannap wrote:
Well, boys are better than men in my opinion, in the meaning of the definition. "boy" represents most* males under 19 (or just over but look under 19), and Tom Daley is only 19 and continues to look under that age, so he can perfectly be referred to as a boy. I am 16, so I am attracted to boys ages 15-19. Unlike men who are over 25 that I am not attracted to often, minus a few celebrity exceptions.
*for lack of a better word
Uh-huh.
I see the Irrelevance Patrol paid a visit to your post.
by Kannap » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:00 pm
DesAnges wrote:Kannap wrote:
Well, boys are better than men in my opinion, in the meaning of the definition. "boy" represents most* males under 19 (or just over but look under 19), and Tom Daley is only 19 and continues to look under that age, so he can perfectly be referred to as a boy. I am 16, so I am attracted to boys ages 15-19. Unlike men who are over 25 that I am not attracted to often, minus a few celebrity exceptions.
*for lack of a better word
Uh-huh.
I see the Irrelevance Patrol paid a visit to your post.
*nods* Magicby Dumb Ideologies » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:01 pm
Divair wrote:Kannap wrote:
Well, boys are better than men in my opinion, in the meaning of the definition. "boy" represents most* males under 19 (or just over but look under 19), and Tom Daley is only 19 and continues to look under that age, so he can perfectly be referred to as a boy. I am 16, so I am attracted to boys ages 15-19. Unlike men who are over 25 that I am not attracted to often, minus a few celebrity exceptions.
*for lack of a better word
What a limited range.
by Katyuscha » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:01 pm
Divair wrote:Kannap wrote:
Well, boys are better than men in my opinion, in the meaning of the definition. "boy" represents most* males under 19 (or just over but look under 19), and Tom Daley is only 19 and continues to look under that age, so he can perfectly be referred to as a boy. I am 16, so I am attracted to boys ages 15-19. Unlike men who are over 25 that I am not attracted to often, minus a few celebrity exceptions.
*for lack of a better word
What a limited range.
by Dumb Ideologies » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:04 pm
by Immoren » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:04 pm
Boomhaueristan wrote:Is that one poster around still? Parkour empire or whatever? Always wore thos Noir style suits?
He was the A-bomb.
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Hurdegaryp » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:04 pm
Divair wrote:http://i.imgur.com/2t6ULe0.png
Yup.
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by DesAnges » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:05 pm
by Aequalitia » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:07 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
