100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Giovinetta
|
|
|
As long as I don't have to be naked. I don't want people to see my C-section scar =[
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once knew a girl who thought Anakin Skywalker was her boyfriend. I think this is a similar situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 to 160? Wow, you do have ridiculous standards. What's your IQ? Where did you get tested? My comments lose something if you're not aware of the long-term, underlying context. Which is OK. And if wanting someone with a functioning brain is a "ridiculous standard," then I plead guilty as charged. No, I just mean that 140-160 is very, very, high. Far higher than "functioning". I'm a government tested 135. So, I kind of understand what the numbers mean. 130 - Gifted 140 - Genius 160 is practically unattainable. Well, unless you're from a country other than the USA. They use different standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Giovinetta
on
Thu 12/18/08 05:31 PM
|
|
I've been in a few. So, I guess. It really depends on what they have. I don't think I could ever date someone with DID, ODD, or the advanced stanges of Schizophrenia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. My mum says we're "disgusting together" =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lexy, Not trying to hijack, although I do need a distraction... I found out recently I had wickedly unrealistic expectations. I wanted a man with immediate physicality, and many blue collar traits that were about immediacy. I also wanted a smart, steady, secure man who could challenge and inspire me, and that I could admire & respect. Duh..... it doesn't exist. It is a dichotomy, and I wanted both ends to fuse. So I had to go in the middle there... and re-prioritize. And then I met the professor. I definitely don't feel like I settled. Not one iota. And we use words like dichotomy in everyday conversations. OK, there IS such a thing as being unrealistic in one's expectations. I really don't think I'm guilty of that -- I say I need someone with a 160 IQ but I'd really be OK with 140. Seriously -- what I want is, admittedly, non-mainstream. And I have discovered that non-mainstream people don't use dating sites. I have a theory about that, but this is not the time or place for it. It just seems strange to me that they apparently no longer exist in the real world, either.... 140 to 160? Wow, you do have ridiculous standards. What's your IQ? Where did you get tested? Anyhow, my problem was that I was ****ing psycho. At least I'm willing to admit that I was the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99% of my friends are male. If my boyfriend ever had a problem with it than they're clearly not the one for me.
Luckily, I've never had that problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
first rule of arguing
|
|
Ad hominems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What would you do?
|
|
You could do what my ex-boyfriend's mum did and ban your son from associating with non-believers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. I think that is awesome. Every time we see a species evolve, scientists say "That should have taken millions of years!" 
How can Darwinists being so very wrong work in support of their beliefs? I want that! I want to be able to be completely wrong and still have everybody believe my harebrained ideas. Oh but they do. People still believe in the bible even though it's completely wrong. See, science leaves open room for improvement. In a rational world it's okay to admit you're wrong. Nothing is written in stone. The point is, evolution was proven right there. Or atleast given very solid evidence. There is history in the bible. There's history in Tom Sawyer but that doesn't make it true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let us say we have
|
|
My granma thinks she has a Guardian Cowboy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. I think that is awesome. Every time we see a species evolve, scientists say "That should have taken millions of years!"
How can Darwinists being so very wrong work in support of their beliefs? I want that! I want to be able to be completely wrong and still have everybody believe my harebrained ideas. Oh but they do. People still believe in the bible even though it's completely wrong. See, science leaves open room for improvement. In a rational world it's okay to admit you're wrong. Nothing is written in stone. The point is, evolution was proven right there. Or atleast given very solid evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
furthermore..if we are going by actual hard scientific fact...then when it can be proven that one species can evolve into a whole new species of their own.. Pr'much already proven by looking at sequential fossil records. Here, I'll link you a picture. You seem like the type that needs pictures.... http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif Evolution of modern cetaceans This happens over a very, very, long time. Longer than you can probably fathom. and Im not talking about genetic disorders and minor variations in the gentic code (all of which are harmful and not the norm) One genetic disorder might not make a difference but a buildup of them over millions of years can. Im talking about one species changing into a whole new species...examples breed a dog and cat...create a new species. /facepalm I took the time to read your entire Bible, please take the time to learn basic biology. Genetics don't work like that. You can't breed a cat and a dog together because they aren't the same family. Only animals within the same genus can breed like Tigers and Lions. Even then you get the horrible monstrosity that is Ligers. Oh wait, so science HAS created a new species by mixing two creatures together. +1 for science. it hasnt been done. it cant be proven. Therefore why should children be taught this "theory"??? cause right now thats all the belief in evolution is. Read 'em and weep: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html okay thank you. the animal kingdom. yup you cant breed and intermix them. I was actually being very SARCASTIC when i was talking about making a dog/cat. because like you said you cant really mix animal species... even genetic disorders dont come along the lines of creating a whole new species....although similiar types do breed or have been made to breed with eachother. the liger like u said. wolves and domestic dogs have also without human control... and ya i looked at the lizards..i looked at it very quickly but ill go back. there lizard bodies started changing from the insides. yes but they are all still lizards correct??? Yes, but they are now a different species of lizard. After a few million years they could become a different classification. It's just one step of many. Over a short period of time you're not going to notice much of a difference. It's over a very long amount of time that you get a significant change. Like...Um, example. Lets say you have a newborn baby. You see that baby everyday so you can't tell how much he's changing. You compare how he is today to how he was yesterday. Your relatives who don't see him often do notice a change, however. Last time they saw him he couldn't drive a car. Get it? =] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Note to the guys....
|
|
Was his English terrible? He might have been Indian.
Not trying to say anything bad about Indians but they come from a very sexually repressed country and seem to think talking to women like that is acceptable. I get messages from them all the time =/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Open marriage
|
|
A friend of mine grew up with two parents in an open relationship. It worked out great for them and she grew up to be a perfectly normal person.
If anything it would make your daughter more open minded and tolerant of other's lifestyles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Giovinetta
on
Tue 12/02/08 02:25 PM
|
|
furthermore..if we are going by actual hard scientific fact...then when it can be proven that one species can evolve into a whole new species of their own.. Pr'much already proven by looking at sequential fossil records. Here, I'll link you a picture. You seem like the type that needs pictures.... http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif Evolution of modern cetaceans This happens over a very, very, long time. Longer than you can probably fathom. and Im not talking about genetic disorders and minor variations in the gentic code (all of which are harmful and not the norm) One genetic disorder might not make a difference but a buildup of them over millions of years can. Im talking about one species changing into a whole new species...examples breed a dog and cat...create a new species. /facepalm I took the time to read your entire Bible, please take the time to learn basic biology. Genetics don't work like that. You can't breed a cat and a dog together because they aren't the same family. Only animals within the same genus can breed like Tigers and Lions. Even then you get the horrible monstrosity that is Ligers. Oh wait, so science HAS created a new species by mixing two creatures together. +1 for science. it hasnt been done. it cant be proven. Therefore why should children be taught this "theory"??? cause right now thats all the belief in evolution is. Read 'em and weep: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Angels with "swords"?
|
|
Because God isn't real and the bible is a book of fairy tales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just look at the human race. what is the oldest existing picture of a human that you can find?? i mean if you want to belief 'evolution' is correct..then we should continue to be evolving. we would be like this ever evolving species huh??? funny how most of us have two legs and two arms.. and when some deformaties occur..(webbed feet, downs syndrome, heart abnormalities..ETC) its usually becasue of some sort of genetic defect. evolution makes no sense. we've looked like humans for far tooooo long. We are continuing to evolve. You just aren't going to see a difference in only a matter of a few thousand years and you definitely aren't going to see a difference in the time photos have been around. Homo sapiens have only been around about 200,000 years. It takes MILLIONS of years to make a noticeable difference. There were other hominids before us as well; ie. homo habilis, erectus, and georgicus. Their species died out as many others do. Also, you do know that genetic "defects" are pretty good proof that evolution is real? If those webbed feet were somehow beneficial to that person, lets say ice caps melt and we get a Waterworld scenario, and their children had webbing as well a few million years from now we could have hominids with fins. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, his reasoning is actually pretty retarded. The dollar bill isn't a living organism. You can't compare how living organisms came to be with how a man made object came to be. It's called an analogy. He was comparing a dollar bill, which contains information to a living creature, which contains information. DNA is incredibly complex. What scientists used to call "junk" DNA is turning out to be necessary to life. They have also discovered that DNA compresses information. So one sequence of DNA actually carries information for more than one genetic expression. DNA is far more complex than we ever realized and science is currently proving that one experiment at a time. Have you ever seen a cloned cat or dog? They look nothing like the original. Different color, size, personality, etc. DNA isn't a simple ACGT = blue eyes. Nope, sorry. That information is encoded with other aspects of the creature. So if you change some DNA to make a creature's eyes blue, that might work, but you might also make it deaf or bald or non-viable. So...what is "stupid" about that analogy? Why shouldn't the information in DNA be considered information? Why should we accept that the information in DNA could have been compressed, using an algorithm that we might never decipher, on accident? Also, I think it would behoove you to not use the word "retarded" to mean stupid. The two words have very different meanings and you can easily offend people with special needs children by using that word flippantly. Sorry about using "retarded" inappropriately. I honestly didn't think about it. I know it's an analogy. What I'm saying is that using a dollar bill is misleading. He says an option is that the dollar "formed from other more primitive pieces of paper". This is obviously an attempt to make evolution look silly and back up his need for a creator (the guy who put the dollar in the wallet/made it). If this wasn't an obviously man-made object it wouldn't be nearly as absurd to say that. His analogy wouldn't be as solid if he had used living organisms instead of non-living. I guess I should have used "misleading". His analogy is misleading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, Giovinetta, i did nt watch the yutube post, imreally not interested, i'll let you or others comment. Oh, it's okay. I wasn't commenting on your post specifically, just the video. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
