malek has left us until January...

[TVC15]

*yawn*

That's my biggest problem with evolutionists. They feel they're superior to those who don't believe in evolution, and they act like they're intellectuals. Granted many fundies who teach/preach against evolution are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellows, but evolutionists have no ground to act like their theory is fallable when after decades they still can't explain basic issues like the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

*yawn*

The Zelda impressions are up so I'm going to read that.

You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational. 

Never said it should be disregarded; certain aspects of evolution and natural selection in general (which is not evolution per se) are fine with me.

My belief in God is based on faith, as well as my observations of nature and research into alternative views such as evolution. I would be much more content with evolutionists if they would get off their high horse and admit that the theory has many flaws, and requires a level of faith as well. But the "f" word is dirty to some people.

Um, they generally do admit there are things missing.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

I believe there is a god

Do you also believe that evolution is a myth created by evildoing assholes riding on "high horses", as PD puts it?

[Christopher]

Actually I believe there is a god, and that he created the world and you have the choice to do what you want in your life, if your a good person you'll go to heaven, if your bad you go to hell.  I don't believe in only one religion as it, hell I don't thank any religion is right.

I just believe there is a god, and the way you act determines where your spirit goes.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Personally I believe we're all chilling on one plane, neither Heaven nor Hell, living the best day of our lives every day.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

LIKE BILL MURRAY'S GROUNDHOG DAY TIMES 1,000.

[close]

[Phoenix Dark]

You are correct, the theory that has evidence that is incomplete should be completely disregarded because magic people in the sky that require no evidence are much more rational. 
Never said it should be disregarded; certain aspects of evolution and natural selection in general (which is not evolution per se) are fine with me.
My belief in God is based on faith, as well as my observations of nature and research into alternative views such as evolution. I would be much more content with evolutionists if they would get off their high horse and admit that the theory has many flaws, and requires a level of faith as well. But the "f" word is dirty to some people.
You don't have to put words in my mouth.

I don't care what comes out of your mouth.  It's the same thing over and over again.

And you refuse or are inable to refute it, so why do you care?

Evolution is a theory. It's not fact, it's not in stone, it's not worth betting one's life on. In many ways it's a modern day glorified retelling of spontaneous generation IMHO. In school we learn about  spontaneous generation at a pretty early time (7th-8th grade), we laugh it off and then forget it. But in 9th grade the basic principle of it comes up again, but this time in evolution.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe in a higher being at all. I would have nothing against evolutionists if they weren't constantly parading around and calling me stupid, be it in the classroom or in publications, when they don't have a slam dunk case for their own belief.

In the end, it's about faith. I have faith in a higher being, and many evolutionists have a faith that something "magically" (to use Shake's terminology) came from nothing

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

They believe there are holes in the theory, whereas most bible beating GODSONS will dutifully create any wild story to explain something they can't reason logically. Which one of these is wiser, good sir?

Blind faith or admitting your not 100%, even with scientific evidence at hand...

[brawndolicious]

And you refuse or are inable to refute it, so why do you care?
Evolution is a theory. It's not fact, it's not in stone, it's not worth betting one's life on. In many ways it's a modern day glorified retelling of spontaneous generation IMHO. In school we learn about  spontaneous generation at a pretty early time (7th-8th grade), we laugh it off and then forget it. But in 9th grade the basic principle of it comes up again, but this time in evolution.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe in a higher being at all. I would have nothing against evolutionists if they weren't constantly parading around and calling me stupid, be it in the classroom or in publications, when they don't have a slam dunk case for their own belief.
In the end, it's about faith. I have faith in a higher being, and many evolutionists have a faith that something "magically" (to use Shake's terminology) came from nothing

And you believe god thinks your dumb enough to have to bet your life.

[Phoenix Dark]

And you refuse or are inable to refute it, so why do you care?
Evolution is a theory. It's not fact, it's not in stone, it's not worth betting one's life on. In many ways it's a modern day glorified retelling of spontaneous generation IMHO. In school we learn about  spontaneous generation at a pretty early time (7th-8th grade), we laugh it off and then forget it. But in 9th grade the basic principle of it comes up again, but this time in evolution.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe in a higher being at all. I would have nothing against evolutionists if they weren't constantly parading around and calling me stupid, be it in the classroom or in publications, when they don't have a slam dunk case for their own belief.
In the end, it's about faith. I have faith in a higher being, and many evolutionists have a faith that something "magically" (to use Shake's terminology) came from nothing

And you believe god thinks your dumb enough to have to bet your life.

You're killing me. Like I said, when you can leave some of the hyperbole at home (a little won't hurt nobody) and dispute my statements, go ahead. Until that time...

[brawndolicious]

You're killing me. Like I said, when you can leave some of the hyperbole at home (a little won't hurt nobody) and dispute my statements, go ahead. Until that time...

There's not hyperbole, that's literally how you're interpreting it.

[Mandark]

Spontaneous generation doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.  One is about life arising from inanimate matter; the other is about gradual change and speciation through heredity and selection pressures.

Evolution is a theory.  Same as the germ theory of disease, or tectonic plate theory, etc.  You can bet your life on it.

I never got the transitional fossil argument.  There are lots of transitional fossils, showing the evolution of horses, whales, bony fish, etc.  Shoot, look at archaeopteryx.

Where are you getting your information on this?  You say you're not coming at it from a religious perspective, and I'll take you at your word.  But it's not like you can find, say, a single university biology department that would make the claims you're making.

[Phoenix Dark]

Spontaneous generation doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.  One is about life arising from inanimate matter; the other is about gradual change and speciation through heredity and selection pressures.

Evolution is a theory.  Same as the germ theory of disease, or tectonic plate theory, etc.  You can bet your life on it.

I never got the transitional fossil argument.  There are lots of transitional fossils, showing the evolution of horses, whales, bony fish, etc.  Shoot, look at archaeopteryx.

Where are you getting your information on this?  You say you're not coming at it from a religious perspective, and I'll take you at your word.  But it's not like you can find, say, a single university biology department that would make the claims you're making.

In general, spontaneous generation deals with the idea that life can be produced by non living things. In the past, many believed rotten meat produced/generated flies; today we know rotten meat attracts flies. This is something that is accepted by all biologists, yet to me evolution draws comparisons to spontaneous generation. With evolution we're told that the first living cells appeared due to some random, by chance combination of non-living materials. In other words, non-living materials produced living things. To make matters worse, we are never told where these non-living materials came from in the first place. Thus we come to the idea of something coming from nothing. How is this? And better yet, if true would it be possible to create something from nothing in a lab? To this day scientists have not been able to achieve that.


There aren't many slam dunk transitional fossils, if any. I wouldn't consider the archaeopteryx a true transitional, middle link. You don't go from dinosaur to bird in one step. There should be millions or fossils detailing the change in body that would be needed to make such a vast change. Dragons perhaps (IE dinoaurs with wings)? I have yet to see any clear evidence of this.


With respect to my information, I've gotten it from various places. Some do indeed come from religious-tinted sources. But lots of it is basic sense, especially with the fossil record. As I said, we should be able to see millions of these missing links considering the vast changes that would be needed to go from dinosaur to bird, for instance.

[Mandark]

Abiogenesis is not evolution.  Very different things.  Simple concept.

Arguing from intuition will get you in trouble.  There should be "millions" of transitional fossils?  How many total fossilized dinosaur skeletons have been found?  Seriously, where are you getting your information?  It's doubtful you've done an independent study of the fossil record.

Scientists find something like this, and instead of filling a gap, it just creates two: the immediate ancestor, and the immediate descendant.

What's the actual reasoning behind your objections to evolution?

[Phoenix Dark]

Abiogenesis is not evolution.  Very different things.  Simple concept.

Arguing from intuition will get you in trouble.  There should be "millions" of transitional fossils?  How many total fossilized dinosaur skeletons have been found?  Seriously, where are you getting your information?  It's doubtful you've done an independent study of the fossil record.

Scientists find something like this, and instead of filling a gap, it just creates two: the immediate ancestor, and the immediate descendant.

What's the actual reasoning behind your objections to evolution?

Well please explain how life came from nothing at all, which is what evolution theorizes.

Perhaps "millions" is far too much of a hyperbolic statement. But I would definitely stand by the assertion that we should see far more of these transitional beings.

In terms of my "information", as I said much of it comes from being forced to learn evolution for 4+ years. I'm curious though; why are you interested in my sources? So you can look at them for a minute and dismiss them, or out of curiosity? The vast majority of books against evolution, like the Darwin's Black Box for instance, have been ridiculed by the scientific community, which comes as no suprise.

My reasoning behind my objection to evolution? I believe the world was created by a higher being, and I simply don't see how the entire universe could be created by chance, out of nothing. To believe such a thing requires as much faith as I have that there is a god imo, but I cannot help but feel that creation is a more reasonable explanation. Evolution is founded on a flawed idea in the first place, as I have explained. To make things worse, there is little evidence of transitional forms. These facts don't give me much confidence in the theory, at all

[Van Cruncheon]

how is a magical indescribable entity a "more reasonable explanation," disallowing for your interminable stupidity and ignorance on this subject as a factor

you, with your utter lack of grounding in science, have not demonstrated any flaws in evolution in any of your arguments; you've just parroted reguarly debunked myths about evolutionary theory and refused to read up on them

i call SHENANIGANS

[Phoenix Dark]

how is a magical indescribable entity a "more reasonable explanation," disallowing for your interminable stupidity and ignorance on this subject as a factor

you, with your utter lack of grounding in science, have not demonstrated any flaws in evolution in any of your arguments; you've just parroted reguarly debunked myths about evolutionary theory and refused to read up on them

i call SHENANIGANS

Way to not address the issues. Why can't you explain the fossil record problem, or the biggest elephant in the room: how nothing becomes something (life)?

[TVC15]

how is a magical indescribable entity a "more reasonable explanation," disallowing for your interminable stupidity and ignorance on this subject as a factor

you, with your utter lack of grounding in science, have not demonstrated any flaws in evolution in any of your arguments; you've just parroted reguarly debunked myths about evolutionary theory and refused to read up on them

i call SHENANIGANS

Way to not address the issues. Why can't you explain the fossil record problem, or the biggest elephant in the room: how nothing becomes something (life)?

Dude, just answer the first part, which you've been dancing around:

how is a magical indescribable entity a "more reasonable explanation?"

[Van Cruncheon]

a) what's this "nothing became life" strawman. we're a stage in a process of matter changing and linking along a causal chain of known and theorized physical, chemical, and "biological" behaviors. we aren't special.

b) what's so fucking special about life, anyhow? we're an arrangement of molecules, just like an asteroid or a nebula or a blob of protoplasm. physical and chemical laws demonstrably determine the interactions of our components. the notion of "complexity" is a limitation of the human condition; the universe doesn't distinguish between simple and complex, and it sure as fuck doesn't act all amazed and then ascribe a "higher power" to the bits what blow its dumb monkey mind.

you're just refactoring the argument from awe into some really disingenuous permutations. the only "evidence" YOU have brought to the table is that you're really fucking amazed by being in this metaphoric "alive" condition; that you magically link the chemical condition of consciousness to some imaginary being that remains conveniently uncircumscribable; and that you really don't have the education or reasoning skills to assert that the larger scientific community is an evil fraud. all you've done is prove that some biology teacher pissed you off so much that you want to believe the opposite of what he told you, which makes you a small child emotionally -- probably thanks to sloppy and uninformed home schooling. congrats -- you've convinced me to send my daughter to a public school. thanks!

[cloudwalking]

Not to jump in here, but I'm not sure where you're getting the "life from nothing" argument:

   1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
   2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
   3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
   4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
   5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

Basic organic monomers (such as amino acids) that form the polymeric building blocks of modern life can be formed spontaneously. Simple organic molecules are of course a long way from a fully functional self-replicating life form. But in an environment with no pre-existing life these molecules may have accumulated and provided a rich environment for chemical evolution ("soup theory").

[Van Cruncheon]

he's just really really amazed by consciousness and wants to believe it's so special as a chemical condition such that it MUST suggest a vast magical designer and preferably the christian one that hates fegs

[cloudwalking]

I don't care what people believe, but I find it funny how some people are like "But life can't come from nothing so evolution is wrong!" when, ummm... what exactly is intelligent design, then?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

God snapped his fingers and poof! LIFE APPEARED

[close]

[Van Cruncheon]

it's a cliche, but who made god appear


unless

spoiler (click to show/hide)

god is undead!

[close]

[CajoleJuice]

I miss malek already...

 :'(

[TVC15]

I miss malek already...

 :'(

I don't.  The puke wants to strip property owners of their rights.

[Phoenix Dark]

Not to jump in here, but I'm not sure where you're getting the "life from nothing" argument:

   1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
   2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
   3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
   4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
   5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

Basic organic monomers (such as amino acids) that form the polymeric building blocks of modern life can be formed spontaneously. Simple organic molecules are of course a long way from a fully functional self-replicating life form. But in an environment with no pre-existing life these molecules may have accumulated and provided a rich environment for chemical evolution ("soup theory").

Interesting that you bring up Miller-Urey; the interpetation of their research is still debated, and it does not provide solid evidence that more complex organisms (IE a mammal for instance) could be formed. Life was not created or simulated.

To make matters worse, the inclusion of methane ammonia in the recreation of earth's atomosphere by Miller makes little sense. Are you familiar with Abelson's hypothesis?

But I digress; could someone please explain how an empty, barron environment "magically" created life? Where did this potential come from?

he's just really really amazed by consciousness and wants to believe it's so special as a chemical condition such that it MUST suggest a vast magical designer and preferably the christian one that hates fegs

Yes, there is complexity. Our bodily system contains many precise components put together to create us. The lack of one component could fuck up the entire process. Evolution would require the gradual addition of various aspects of our body (if we are to continue using humans as an example). Isn't it quite obvious how complex the body is, just based on its makeup? This sort of ties into the idea of transitional forms though; why can't we find clear cut examples of a dinosaur turning into a bird, for instance? To me, that would be the ultamite accomplishment in proving evolution. With humans and fossils, there's always debate on whether it's an actual human, or some ape-man ancestor. Yet a god damn winged dinosaur is rather hard to spin

[Polari]

I think we need to stop posting in this thread in case he drops in and gets the impression we care.

[Phoenix Dark]

I think we need to stop posting in this thread in case he drops in and gets the impression we care.

I respect and fear Malek

[Polari]

I think we need to stop posting in this thread in case he drops in and gets the impression we care.

I respect and fear Malek

You would.

[Van Cruncheon]

Yes, there is complexity. Our bodily system contains many precise components put together to create us. The lack of one component could fuck up the entire process. Evolution would require the gradual addition of various aspects of our body (if we are to continue using humans as an example). Isn't it quite obvious how complex the body is, just based on its makeup? This sort of ties into the idea of transitional forms though; why can't we find clear cut examples of a dinosaur turning into a bird, for instance? To me, that would be the ultamite accomplishment in proving evolution. With humans and fossils, there's always debate on whether it's an actual human, or some ape-man ancestor. Yet a god damn winged dinosaur is rather hard to spin

You assume design and act like it's a top-down process, where the plan was to CREATE a human. We're a fuckin' accident. Chemicals were meandering along and interacting in our tiny little neck of space and one the stages happened to be us. It could very easily have been something NOT self-conscious; it was entirely bottom-up. Again, you assume we're SPECIAL -- that this chemical configuration we interpret as "consciousness" was INTENTIONAL. It wasn't. We're just another chemical permutation, and in the span of existence, we're a tiny tiny tiny little blip. We're not even anomalous in the sense that an anomaly merits note.

LIFE IS NOT SPECIAL SAVE TO THE LIVING. GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD.

We don't have fossils for even 1% of the life forms that existed previous to the past 10,000 years, much less those that existed millions of years ago. It is so geologically unlikely that we'd find enough intermediary forms to demonstrate the incremental branching evolution of even one current species of animal as to be a completely disingenuous request. We have enough to reasssure those folks who ARE grounded in legitimate science that macroevolution is as strong a theory as to be fundamentally useful, and that theory continues to be refined and supported daily. Inductive reasoning more than suffices for raw evolutionary theorizing.

Now quit spewing canned answers from bogus religious propaganda, get over your hatred of your evil biology professor who challenged your marginal education, and FUCKING LEARN SOMETHING.

[Phoenix Dark]

Where did the chemicals come from?

[Van Cruncheon]

actually, the more i think about it, pd, the lengths you'll go to position yourself opposite those that have pissed you off and threatened your worldview is kinda impressive

i mean, you'll memorize entire bogus arguments for intelligent design just because some biology teacher challenged you

you'll defend indefensible republican policies just because randi rhodes and her forum posters struck you funny

[Van Cruncheon]

phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang

[The Fake Shemp]

If Cylons believe in God then so do I.

[Phoenix Dark]

phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang

I'm still waiting actually.

We have enough to reasssure those folks who ARE grounded in legitimate science that macroevolution is as strong a theory as to be fundamentally useful, and that theory continues to be refined and supported daily.

Well where are the clear cut transitional forms? I keep asking, and no one can explain this. I'll cede that science has discovered some rather...interesting fossils recently, but where are these amazing beings? Considering just about everything on this planet evolved from some other creature (according to evolution), we should be able to find some of these long forgotten creatures.

actually, the more i think about it, pd, the lengths you'll go to position yourself opposite those that have pissed you off and threatened your worldview is kinda impressive

i mean, you'll memorize entire bogus arguments for intelligent design just because some biology teacher challenged you

you'll defend indefensible republican policies just because randi rhodes and her forum posters struck you funny

Now THAT is interesting. I've never thought of it that way lol. I wouldn't say bio teachers have pissed me off (I rarely talk in class), but I have said previously that many evolutionists annoy me. The same can be said of Randy Rhode's ilk.

I'm going to think that over because it's very interesting. I never play devil's advocate, but I definitely see how you'd make such a hypothesis

[Mandark]

Well please explain how life came from nothing at all, which is what evolution theorizes.

Easy.  EVOLUTION THEORIZES NO SUCH THING.  There.  Simple.

You answered a question by saying you don't think "the universe" was created by random whatever.  Well, evolution doesn't need to explain the universe, or even a single star system, or the continents, or the atmosphere.  Evolution is a scientific theory about specific phenomena, not a challenge to your personal belief system.

You still haven't given anything close to specific criteria for what constitutes a "transitional" fossil, other than a fossil that 1) Has Wings, and 2) Is A Dinosaur.  I really have no idea what you mean by the term, and you're sort of giving the impression that you define it as "whatever hasn't been discovered."  The tiktaalik is "interesting?"  C'mon.

[TVC15]

phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang

I'm still waiting actually.

You're still waiting?  Guess what?  Science takes time!  You remind me of those anti-stem cell Republicans that say researching is a waste since it will be ten years before we discover anything useful.  Science takes time!  You don't get the answers now, that's how the game is played.

[Phoenix Dark]

phoenixdark, i can see where this road is leading, so: why do we have to have an answer for everything? you don't seem to need an answer for where your big ol' creator came from. how about you wait and let the scientific process do its thang

I'm still waiting actually.

You're still waiting?  Guess what?  Science takes time!  You remind me of those anti-stem cell Republicans that say researching is a waste since it will be ten years before we discover anything useful.  Science takes time!  You don't get the answers now, that's how the game is played.

Stem cells are a waste of time




















































That was a joke; I'm not that stupid

[Phoenix Dark]

Well please explain how life came from nothing at all, which is what evolution theorizes.

Easy.  EVOLUTION THEORIZES NO SUCH THING.  There.  Simple.

You answered a question by saying you don't think "the universe" was created by random whatever.  Well, evolution doesn't need to explain the universe, or even a single star system, or the continents, or the atmosphere.  Evolution is a scientific theory about specific phenomena, not a challenge to your personal belief system.

You still haven't given anything close to specific criteria for what constitutes a "transitional" fossil, other than a fossil that 1) Has Wings, and 2) Is A Dinosaur.  I really have no idea what you mean by the term, and you're sort of giving the impression that you define it as "whatever hasn't been discovered."  The tiktaalik is "interesting?"  C'mon.

Then how did life come about?

We're going in circles here 

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Damn, this thread.

[Van Cruncheon]

PD refuses to accept that science is a far better tool and has accumulated far more evidence for presenting a viable explanation to the origin of life than his book of magical fairy tales.

EDIT: actually, Mandark's right -- we're just letting him derail evolution discussion into "origin of life" discussions. evolution explains humans, not life.

[Mandark]

We're not going in circles.  You're being horribly dense.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with "how life came about."  How hard is that to understand?

When someone tells you mountains were formed by drifting tectonic plates, do you respond with "Yeah, well where did the Earth come from??

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

WHAT CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?





GOD.

[Van Cruncheon]

i came first

[The Fake Shemp]

Again - I'd like to point out the following evidence to Mandark, who is just being incredibly irrational.  Cylons, which are sentient beings of vast intelligence, believe in God.  And they're machines!  Also, Captain Kirk met God in Star Trek V.  I am pretty sure that about wraps this up.

...

And to finish the joke, Drinky always comes first.

[Phoenix Dark]

We're not going in circles.  You're being horribly dense.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with "how life came about."  How hard is that to understand?

When someone tells you mountains were formed by drifting tectonic plates, do you respond with "Yeah, well where did the Earth come from??

Why yes I do







































 

What theory do you feel is most likely to explain the origin of life?

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

I'm pretty sure the whole BSG thing is played out. Now its just redundant.

[The Fake Shemp]

I am pretty sure the whole Shake thing is played out.  Now you're just redundant.  You see what I did there?

This makes sense, people.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

huh

[The Fake Shemp]

I will pee in a cup and tell you it's lemonade.  You'll drink it.  Where is your science now, heathen?

[Phoenix Dark]

Shake is cooler than BSG

[The Fake Shemp]

Nothing is cooler than BSG.

[Van Cruncheon]

tonight...you.

[Phoenix Dark]

Sam Raimi is

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Shake is cooler than BSG

Respek.

[CajoleJuice]

I forgot about BSG last night. 

[The Fake Shemp]

I forgot about BSG last night. 

Adama was badass - he doesn't fuck around.

[CajoleJuice]

I forgot about BSG last night. 

Adama was badass - he doesn't fuck around.

I always catch the repeat on Mondays at 11 if I miss it. 

[The Fake Shemp]

Totally worth it, just to see Adama put a beatdown on a certain somebody.  Well, not really a beatdown, but it's pretty physical!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Starbuck got fucked up!

[close]

[CajoleJuice]

OH GODDAMN IT I WENT TO QUOTE YOUR POST AND I SAW WHAT THE SPOILER WAS FUCK THIS SHIT FUCK

[The Fake Shemp]

If it makes you feel better - it's a small fraction of the episode!