posted
Sorry but I am still giggling about the term, "creation week." I am picturing God on faternity and sorority row making banners and recruting pledges. Now back to the serious posters!
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, it is not evil for God to create the kind of universe He wants to have--one filled with light, not darkness, all throughout, without having to wait billions of years for light from distant stars to reach every point. How He did this is open to speculation. There are some indications that supposed physical "constants" can change in certain circumstances even today, and there is no reason God could not have set up different physical constants after the initial creation of the universe. After all, Who ordains these physical constants and enforces them so that they remain constant? It says in Psalms 33:6, 9:
quote:By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.... For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
One of the most glaring deficiencies of the mechanistic materialist (atheist) viewpoint, is that it has no rational explanation for why physical constants are constants--why they don't change abruptly from moment to moment. We observe that the physical universe seems to operate according to laws. But how did those laws come into being? And why do they remain the same now?
We who believe in the Biblical account of God's Creation assume that God created the trees in the Garden of Eden as mature trees to begin with. Whether or not they had annual rings, then, is open to question. He also apparently created the first man as an adult, not as a newborn infant that wouldn't be able to survive on its own.
For anyone to protest that it is evil for God to make His Creation mature from the beginning, the way He sees is the best way, is absurdly arrogant, and judges the protester, not God. You seem to want God to create the universe in such a way that its creation can be divined (pardon the pun) using only the material universe itself as a criterion for determining how it came into being. This is as unscientific in the true sense--and as silly--as closed-minded researchers resolutely insisting that they are going to investigate the Golden Gate Bridge, and determine how it came into being on its own, without any recourse to architect or builder.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Which is why any discussion with you is pointless because every argument to you boils down to "A Wizard Did It" and no amount of evidence or science will convince you otherwise, why do you even bother trying worthless "Judo Arguments" especially the ones Isaac Asimov disproved decades ago astounds me. Why DO YOU try to use science to convince us when your own words prove that you don't believe in science at all?
Why are you trying to use science when even if science managed to show you 100% that evolution is valid when you can just say "the evidence is planted there by God to test us" up to and including believing that the speed of light is not a constant and presuming that the universe was created 10,000 years ago as is with light and photons already in route?
quote:it has no rational explanation for why physical constants are constants
Does everything need a "why?" And does it really count as an "answer" to say "God did it, but we don't know why He did it?"
I mean, what's the real difference between "light moves X miles per second for no real reason" and "light moves X miles per second because God wanted it that way for some reason?" I fail to see why the second should satisfy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to want God to create the universe in such a way that its creation can be divined (pardon the pun) using only the material universe itself as a criterion for determining how it came into being.
Hee. No, we want to use only the material universe itself as a criterion for determining how it came into being. That is scientific in the true sense.
quote:...is that it has no explanation for why physical constants are constants yet.
Fixed that for you.
Or you could go with this one:
quote:...the trouble with theism is it has no rational explanation for why the physical constants are constants.
I'm afraid "God done it" isn't a rational explanation. Your Psalms quote doesn't say, "And God set the universal constants at such and such a value for this reason." That would be quite astonishing.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Nah. You show up for some extra coursework. It's called an "add-on minor." We've had a few people take 'em, but I have no idea why anyone would. Maybe it's a Pokemon-like impulse to collect 'em all.
What, you never heard of taking a course just because you're interested in the subject matter? And subjects do intersect; I've often wished I knew more computer science, and could easily see a physics PhD taking a minor in that, or in math for the more theory-inclined. In fact, math would probably be a good minor for practically any science subject.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why his god is evil and not worth worshiping for it is a lying god whose only purpose is to deceive.
Is an author lying to his characters if his characters believe they have a backstory that wasn't actually ever written?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why his god is evil and not worth worshiping for it is a lying god whose only purpose is to deceive.
Is an author lying to his characters if his characters believe they have a backstory that wasn't actually ever written?
Absolutely! Indeed, an author is lying to his characters no matter what the status of the backstory; they believe that their world exists and is as fully-realised as ours, which is plainly untrue. I mean, seriously, you're going to hold up fiction as an example of truthfulness? The mind reels.
But even aside from that, your analogy breaks down; the correct question is this: When a character believes he has backstory X, and the in-story evidence shows that in fact Y happened, now is the author lying? At any rate it seems clear that someone, either within or without the story universe, is lying or mistaken. Consider Charlie, who believes that Alice and Bob are his parents, on the very reasonable grounds that they have told him so. In fact, David and Elizabeth are his actual parents, and Alice and Bob are lying through their teeth. But Alice and Bob are fictional characters; I just now made them up. Is it not more reasonable to say, then, that I am the liar, through the medium of Alice and Bob? Worse, when Charlie eventually discovers the in-story truth, he will have reason to be annoyed at Alice and Bob; not at the true author (hah) of his misfortune, to wit, me. (Unless I break the fourth wall, in which case Charlie will have all sorts of other issues; how would you like to be told that you're a figment of someone's imagination?)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you are right that the author is lying, here's the follow up... Are authors being evil when they lie to their characters in this way? Would authors be evil if their characters actually lived after being created and were lied to in this way? And is, to use Blayne's words, the author's only purpose to deceive?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would authors be evil if their characters actually lived after being created and were lied to in this way?
It depends. Is there a horrible negative consequence of believing in the evidence of one's own senses?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
But this presupposes that the author exists and that the novel didn't just write itself.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Well, if you are right that the author is lying, here's the follow up... Are authors being evil when they lie to their characters in this way?
No, because - I realise this will be a hard concet for you - fictional characters are not real. In fiction I can describe the most horrible tortures, quite unconstrained by mere physical reality; this is not evil, because it is not actually happening.
quote: Would authors be evil if their characters actually lived after being created and were lied to in this way?
Yes. To whatever extent lying is evil, lying to real thinking creatures is evil. I mean, duh!
quote:And is, to use Blayne's words, the author's only purpose to deceive? [/QB]
No, but what of it? Lying is lying.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I propose a new way of looking at this issue.
I call it BIG God vs Little God.
Ron is a firm believer in God, but his God is, well, kind of limited.
He's kind of small, because while the God he believes in is Universally Large and For ALL TIME, the size of his universe is--not that large, and the time that God has spent on the universe, for all its timeliness, is not very much.
Oh, 10,000 years is a long time for me. If I were to face the God that Ron believes in, then WOW, I am an insignificant mote compared to the supreme power and might of God.
Yet, the God I believe in is so much more. He has existed for Billions of years, not 10,000. More accurately, since God is beyond time, both before time and after, he's allowed the Universe he created to exist far longer than 10,000 years. Longer than 10,000 times 10,000 y years.
The Big God's might and his power expand over distances that my simple mind can not begin to really comprehend. He is not God of one small planet, and not the God of one small tribe on one small planet.
He is the God of HOSTS of Planets, truly souls beyond counting.
Face it, which is more impressive of the power of God--a God who created the light of a star that shown over Bethlehem, or the God who created a star thousands or millions of years ago, so that it would shine brightly upon the town of Bethlehem on a day that God had known would be important.
There are those who have faith in the Little God. Those who believe that God's wisdom and power could ever be summed up in one book readable by mere man. They believe that they have awe and faith and fear of the lord.
But they are looking too small.
I stare upon the stars at night, imagining the distances, the magnitude, the true canvas that God used, that we call the Universe, and I find my Awe, my Fear, my Faith.
Sorry KoM, I can't deny God's existence, but I cannot find him in a small book that the Gideon's put in every cheap hotel room. I am a believer in what I can the Big God.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, your god is bigger than Ron's god; I congratulate you on writing such an accurate summation of religion. What is your evidence for this assertion?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There is none only his faith which makes his faith more powerful then the summation that everything the universe tells us is a lie.
IP: Logged |
posted
Darth Mauve, I have been trying to explain that here for years.
Here is something to consider. Oftentimes, people use faith as an excuse to get them off the hook for believing things that suck. They pretend/think that they have no choice when it comes to what they choose to believe about God.
"I have no choice. I must kill the infidel." (whoever that happens to be.)
I disagree with this. We are responsible for what we believe and the fact that people do choose to believe something different means that people can choose to believe something different. It is often not an easy choice or even one that people recognize, but it is a choice and people are responsible for their choices.
If I believe that God wants me to kill infidels, I am responsible for that belief.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with Big God is that even though the assertion that he or it exists is less ludicrous than the Young Earth God, the evidence for such a being is still 0.
And also, all the books are wrong. And if the Genesis bit of the book is wrong, who's to say that the Bethlehem bit is right? If there was no flood and no ark, how do we know that there was a birth in a stable and a man who walked on water?
Given the evidence for these things, and the plausibility of these things is approximately equal.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say this is fascinating. Theists are literally saying "my god is bigger than your god". In almost exactly those words! What is this, kindergarten? And they're the 'modern', 'progressive' theists at that, who don't believe in burning the heretic nor that heretics will burn! It seems it doesn't take much of a scratch in the surface of such to bring the old ways to the fore.
Edit: Let's have some quotes for future truth, just in case. Personally I would be rather embarrassed by this sort of posting, unless of course my dad genuinely was a boxer and could beat up your dad.
quote:I call it BIG God vs Little God.
Ron is a firm believer in God, but his God is, well, kind of limited.
He's kind of small (...)
Yet, the God I believe in is so much more. (...)
He is not God of one small planet, and not the God of one small tribe on one small planet.
He is the God of HOSTS of Planets, truly souls beyond counting.
Woo-hoo! And he has the same amount of evidence as any other god, to wit, zero!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Oftentimes, people use faith as an excuse to get them off the hook for believing things that suck.
In modern society, the opposite happens just as often. A 4000 year old holy book demands a belief which modern society deems sucky, and believers, rather than be tasteless and vulgar enough to trust the word of God, decide that the offending bits just don't have to be taken seriously. Which works out well for those of us who would have been at the receiving end of the sucky behavior, but leads to exactly the thinking you are advocating "Believe whatever you like, and if something is unpleasant, you don't have to believe it".
quote:They pretend/think that they have no choice when it comes to what they choose to believe about God.
How much choice do you have about what to beleive about gravity? To many religious people, God and the Bible are just as concrete as gravity. Gravity doesn't stop because its consequences are unpleasant. God's word doesn't change just because it demands difficult things.
quote:We are responsible for what we believe and the fact that people do choose to believe something different means that people can choose to believe something different.
Well, sure I can choose to believe that if I throw you off a building, you won't get hurt. Don't you think that encouraging me to choose to believe this is going to result in someone getting hurt?
Maybe, rather than believing whatever the hell I choose (which practically, is going to amount to me believing things I like and want to be true), I hold myself to believing things only to the extent that they are evidenced regardless of whether or not I like the consequences of those thing?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, in accusing my Creationist view of reality as being "unscientific," you are missing the basic point that I am disputing your basic definition of what is true science. I maintain that the slavish submission of some people to the atheistic view of reality which demands a mechanistic, materialistic explanation for everything or it isn't science, is a huge fraud and is intellectually bankrupt, because the complex reality of the universe can only be explained by recognizing that there must be an Intelligent Designer. Once you are intellectually honest enough, and fair-minded enough, to allow that component into your thinking, then anything that does not take into account the actions of Creator is not truly scientific. It is a form of denial on the order of fanatical mental blindness, and is completely irrational, no matter how much it may pretend to be "rigorous" in its examination of data.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gravity doesn't stop because its consequences are unpleasant. God's word doesn't change just because it demands difficult things.
Gravity doesn't have a purpose. It knows not when it is killing people.
The question is whether you believe in their existence, not their moral status. There's no 'choice' on whether or not to believe in gravity; when there is the appearance of choice, that merely indicates an absence of evidence.
Ron, are mouse and rat the same kind?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you really should quit being so ridiculously obnoxious. You are trying to invest God with the attributes of Satan, and that is foolish, not clever. Satan only killed three people, you say? Beg to differ. Death itself came into the universe because of Satan. Everyone who has ever died, is on his head. It is God who is Creator, it is God who is the Source of Life, it is God who will resurrect everyone in the appropriate resurrection.
quote:"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."--John 5:28, 29; NKJV
Let me let you in on a secret, Blayne--known to those who understand the Bible with sound scholarship. No one has yet died permanently. When any living being dies, the spirit with the essential identity returns to God, the source of Life. There is no consciousness in death (see Psa. 146:4; Psa. 115:7; John 11:11; 1 Cor. 15:6, 20, 51), but no one has ceased to exist as long as God remembers them. At the time He chooses, God can re-create the physical body, and reunite with it the original spirit, so the actual person that lived before--not just a copy--lives again.
The Bible also teaches that ultimately when the sin problem is fully dealt with, and every human who has ever lived has been confronted with the truth of his own choices in life, those who have hardened themselves in total rejection of God will be finally separated from God. Since He is the Source of Life, all who have fully willed to be separated from Him cease to exist. Utter and eternal annihilation is the ultimate end of those who chose to be separated from their Creator. This includes Satan himself, and all his fellow fallen angels (devils). This final and eternal death of the rejectors of God is called "the Second Death." (cf. Rev. 20:14)
As a point of theological interest, this is the death that Jesus died on the Cross--the second death, separated from God the Father. No other human has ever yet died this death. He did not die just the ordinary "first death" humans normally die. It was only because Jesus is Himself fully God, and has self-existent life, that He could continue to exist separated from His Father, and raise Himself back up to conscious life when called forth by the angel sent from His Father. Jesus said: "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NKJV)
Jesus ran a real risk when He laid down His life for us. If His Sacrifice had not been of sufficient merit, if the value of His life were compromised in any way, so that the Father could not accept it, Jesus risked remaining unconscious in "soul-sleep" forever. On Calvary, He could not be sure He would be accepted, and called to life, so that He could raise Himself back up. He went ahead with His Sacrifice because of His love for His creatures, and by faith in the righteousness of God to which He was submitted.
quote:But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.--Isaiah 53:10, 11; NASB
[ December 15, 2009, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, I do not know if a mouse and a rat are the same kind. I do not know for sure if a wolf and a collie are the same kind. I do not know if a lion and a jaguar are the same kind. I think it is likely that they are. But the final determination would require a complete mapping of their respective genes. Even the old test of whether or not they can reproduce together is not necessarily the final determinant, since as has been noted there are "edge" cases.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How are you defining "kind," though, even through genetic mapping? Does one need to be a direct ancestor of the other? And why would you accept a geneticist's claim that a given species is an ancestor, since you don't actually believe in evolution in the first place?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
if I were a troll I'ld be orgasming right now from just how so completely I managed to tick you off to finally deserve being ATTACKED BY THE HOLY BIBLE QUOTES BY THOU! FEAR THE QUOTES! RAAAAAR!
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: if I were a troll I'ld be orgasming right now from just how so completely I managed to tick you off to finally deserve being ATTACKED BY THE HOLY BIBLE QUOTES BY THOU! FEAR THE QUOTES! RAAAAAR!
How is what you're doing different from what you'd be doing if you were a troll?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Self depreciation? Lampshade hanging? I'm doing the equivalent of the Bugs Bunny hugging.
IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm sorry, I don't see it. Posting in the vein of "if I was a troll this is what I'd do next" is the same thing as being the troll and doing it next.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hes already admitted in everything but name to agreeing that he'ld never be convinced by any rational scientific argument because it conflicts with a book written 2000 years ago.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ron is wrong, and badly so. I just would rather see you hold back from that sort of thing.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Whats really left but ridicule?
It actually IS possible to say nothing. Or to state your objections, calmly and without being deliberately offensive.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CAN someone explain to me why the argument of irreducible complexity is absolutely false and illogical? I'm not going to pretend to be particularly scientifically knowledgeable in this area, so feel free to break your explanation down and keep it simple. All the posturing aside, I really would like to understand this better. Thank you in advance!
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: CAN someone explain to me why the argument of irreducible complexity is absolutely false and illogical? I'm not going to pretend to be particularly scientifically knowledgeable in this area, so feel free to break your explanation down and keep it simple. All the posturing aside, I really would like to understand this better. Thank you in advance!
Its in a link I showed in the previous page about halfway through the lecture by reknown professor of biochemistry and other subjects Kenneth Miller, basically the idea is that certain biological functions are so irreducibly complex that if you remove any single part they are by definition non function and such a system could not have evolved on its own.
This is immediately disproven with the primary creationist/ID poster child of the ID movement is the bacterial flegellem which by example of removing up to 40 of its 50 parts becomes the type-3 secretory system which exsists in the worlds fiercest dieseases and he provides a quick chart of how it evolved and gained purpose.
IP: Logged |
posted
Sinflower, if the 2-hour lecture from Miller is too long (although it really is a great lecture, and you should listen to it if you can), here's just 6 minutes on irreducible complexity from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGYxZz9588Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: CAN someone explain to me why the argument of irreducible complexity is absolutely false and illogical? I'm not going to pretend to be particularly scientifically knowledgeable in this area, so feel free to break your explanation down and keep it simple. All the posturing aside, I really would like to understand this better. Thank you in advance!
Here. Watch this. NOVA explains Irreducible Complexity very well as part of detailing how it played out in the Dover event.
Honestly, this documentary is about 90% of modern evolution controversy wrapped up into a single event.
quote:Hes already admitted in everything but name to agreeing that he'ld never be convinced by any rational scientific argument because it conflicts with a book written 2000 years ago.
This may actually be true. But if Ron has a sufficient reason to believe the 2000-year-old book is definitely true, then it would be rational to reject any scientific arguments that contradict it directly. My suspicion is that Ron believes he has such a sufficient reason, and thus is going to deduce things accordingly.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an awesome paper that went through and traced mutation by mutation how a sodium channel became a potassium channel (I think that was it, but it has been a few years since I read the paper). It traced back to common ancestors and showed why it worked. Where they didn't have a common ancestor, they were able to say, this sequence must have existed at some point. And then they showed why the individual mutation had a benefit, or at worst was neutral (neutral mutations randomly happen and if there is no negative effect, they will stick around).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I have stated--I thought pretty clearly--the complexity of the universe argues overwhelmingly for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Therefore--and this is a LOGICAL conclusion--any science that deliberately refuses to consider the existence of a Creator, cannot be real science, for there is no rational reason to exclude God.
And sorry, to those who object they are not atheists but still accept the mechanistic materialist mantra that science can only consist of considering the physical data without recourse to a Creator, you are inconsistent in allowing yourselves to be brainwashed by a way of thinking about what is science that is utterly and entirely atheistic by very definition.
And Blayne, I was not "ticked," as you suggested. I chose to give you an answer that seemed quite clear and relevant to me, and I added to it relevant statements from God's Word. Perhaps I was casting "pearls before swine," something Jesus warned us not to do; but I am enthusiastic about these truths, and want as many people as possible to know about them. And anyway, it is your choice whether you want to be a swine or not.
Samprimary, just because some creative, imaginative, clever scientist comes up with some painfully contrived explanation for a highly unlikely means by which one or two specially selected examples of irreducible complexity (in very simple organisms) might have happened step-by-step, let's not lose sight of the many other examples of organs that absolutely could not have evolved step-by-step, such as the eye. That is one of the prime examples that Behe referred to. Until everything is there, the eye cannot work at all, thus has no value to the organism, and in fact is a detriment to the survival of the organism. None of the intermediate steps would have survived.
[ December 15, 2009, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I have stated--I thought pretty clearly--the complexity of the universe argues overwhelmingly for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Except, of course, for the obvious and confounding fact that any Intelligent Designer must by its very nature be more complex than the universe.
quote:Samprimary, just because some creative, imaginative, clever scientist comes up with some painfully contrived explanation for a highly unlikely means by which one or two specially selected examples of irreducible complexity (in very simple organisms) might have happened step-by-step...
It must be fascinating to be able to rationalize away any evidence that contradicts your worldview. What does that feel like?
quote: let's not lose sight of the many other examples of organs that absolutely could not have evolved step-by-step, such as the eye. That is one of the prime examples that Behe referred to.
Except that Behe was stunningly wrong. The evolution of the eye is actually one of the more clear-cut examples of evolution out there. The wing is more complex; the eye is pretty darn simple to explain. As an example, this claim -- "Until everything is there, the eye cannot work at all" -- is completely and totally false. Have you ever actually studied flatworms?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not know for sure if a wolf and a collie are the same kind. I do not know if a lion and a jaguar are the same kind. I think it is likely that they are. But the final determination would require a complete mapping of their respective genes.
You've suggested before that finding the absence of "dog genes" in the wolf genome would be evidence that dogs evolved novel genes and that if these genes were found in wolves then it would prove that evolution had not occurred.
You seem to now be saying that if the genes are there then it's proof that they are the same kind and that if they are absent then they must be different kinds. Are you now saying that you don't see evidence for evolution in either outcome?
quote:organs that absolutely could not have evolved step-by-step, such as the eye
The fact that every likely "intermediate form" of a modern human eye can be found in one or more extant species argues against this conclusion.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
