So why did you guys get unlinked?

[Doc Sigma]

BECAUSE, LIKE, STUFF SHOULD HAVE EVOLVED INSIDE THE JAR! I opened the jar and it did not contain monkey/human hybrids!!! WTF

[Bocaj Claw]

Peanut butter is too thick. Not primal soupy enough.

[nickspoon]

Peanut butter is too thick. Not primal soupy enough.

Soup, on the other hand, is excellent for commencing evolution.

[Rooster]

Anyone who doesn't believe in at least one form of evolution is retarded. These are the same people who don't believe in global warming ffs!

[Cactus Jack]

I bet if you let the peanut butter sit long enough something would start growing in there. I had that happen reacently with some jam. One would assume peanut butter has similiar properties to jam as they both go on my sandwhich.

[Doc Sigma]

By that logic, peanut butter must have similar properties to KY Jelly, because both go on m-- PLAY HIM OFF, KEYBOARD CAT!!!

[MuffinSticks]

/docsigasm

[Rooster]

Friend of mine ate some KY for a dare. Said it tasted of sex.

[Dr. Sticks]

had it been used?

[Doc Sigma]

Used KY eventually turns into this weird sticky... stuff... which is hard to describe, and is the complete opposite of lubrication.

[Bocaj Claw]

Anyone who doesn't believe in at least one form of evolution is retarded. These are the same people who don't believe in global warming ffs!

Oh piffle and bah! It makes much more sense to ignore all available evidence, science, and common sense and believe that the Earth is only 6,00 some years old and a giant bearded man in the sky spontaneously generated the entire ecosystem just so that two idjits could live happy, utopia-esque lives until they ate the doom pear and had to go out to the real world and child birth and sweat of the brow and where the hell did the rest of humanity come from, rampant incest?

[Rooster]

Exactly!

Also, has anyone else noticed that the people who tend to deny evolution and claim we are all descended from two people (Adam and Eve) are ALSO the same people who tend to marry their sisters?

Funny that.

[Bocaj Claw]

Well, the Bible does promote drunken incestuous rape. Looking back at a burning city struck down by the Wrath of God (TM) = bad. Pillar of salt for you. Getting your dad drunk and sexing him = good?

[Rooster]

Ah, simpler times before the queers and jews ruined the world....

[gforce422]

Well, the Bible does promote drunken incestuous rape. Looking back at a burning city struck down by the Wrath of God (TM) = bad. Pillar of salt for you. Getting your dad drunk and sexing him = good?

I don't think the Bible promotes drunken incestous rape. The incident you are referring to is found in Genesis 19:31. If you look at it though, it doesn't look like it is condoning incest by any means. It was recorded simply on a historical basis, to explain the origin of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
The situation with Lot's wife was somewhat different. Looking back was most likely not merely a passing glance...it was probably also symbolic of a desire for what they had before, a desire for all of the bad things that Sodom and Gomorrah had to offer, instead of going forward with the better things that God had in store for them. I know that I've kind of paraphrased a lot, but that's the basic gist of it.

Also, has anyone else noticed that the people who tend to deny evolution and claim we are all descended from two people (Adam and Eve) are ALSO the same people who tend to marry their sisters?

Funny that.

Actually, most all Christians condemn incest. The only sect I'm aware of that promotes that kind of relationship is radical Mormonism. I realize there is an issue with Adam and Eve, because there would have to be many incestuous relationships in order to populate the earth from two people. I was going to type out all of my opinions on this, but I found somebody who has already written on the issue, which lined up pretty closely with what I was going to say:

"At least two things can be said in response to this issue of incest. First, if the human race was propagated from a single pair, as the Bible indicates, such closely related marriages were unavoidable. The demand for some other way of getting the race started is an unfair expectation. In the second place, the notion of incest must be probed more closely. At first the sin of incest was connected with sexual relationships between parents and children. Only afterward was the notion of incest extended to sibling relationships. By Moses’ time there were laws governing all forms of incest (Lev 18:7–17; 20:11–12, 14, 17, 20–21; Deut 22:30; 27:20, 22, 23). These laws clearly state that sexual relations or marriage is forbidden with a mother, father, stepmother, sister, brother, half brother, half sister, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, aunt, uncle or brother’s wife. The Bible, in the meantime, notes that Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12). Therefore, the phenomenon is not unknown in Scripture. Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20). In Egypt, the routine marriage of brothers and sisters among the Pharaohs all the way up to the second century made the Mosaic law all the more a radical break with their Egyptian past. [HSOBX, at Gen 4.17]

"Amnon’s deed is designated as hased indicating the degradation of the tenderness natural between brothers and sisters into an immoral intimacy (2 S. 13). The crime is that of sexual relation between persons within the degrees of relationship forbidden by the Levitical law, as that of Lot’s daughters with their father (Gen. 19:33); the son with his father’s concubines, as Reuben (Gen. 35:22), and Absalom (2 S. 16:22; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1); that of the father-in-law with his daughter-in-law (Gen. 38:15ff; cf. Ezk. 22:11) of the brother with the sister or half-sister, as Amnon (2 S. 13:14); of the brother-in-law with the sister-in-law (Mt. 14:3); or with both a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (Lev. 20:14: 18:17). Illicit relation with the brother’s widow is designated (Lev. 20:21) as a disgraceful act. literally “uncleannes” (excepting the levirate marriage). Such acts were forbidden on the ground that the Jews were to avoid the evil practices of the Canaanites and the Egyptians in regard to marriage within the specified limits, because this would naturally result in breaking down the sanctity of the bonds connecting near relatives, and in throwing open the floodgates of immorality among them.[ISBE, s.v. "Crimes"]

I know, I know, TL;DR. And off topic as all heck, but hey, I'll roll with it. I'm just throwing this out for thought fodder, I don't want to shove this down anyone's throat or anything like that, I respect everybody's individual beliefs. Just some thoughts and opinions.