Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Russell

Canberra, Australia

#128506 Apr 28, 2013
Please see MORE issues with the "feathered dinosaur" conundrum---> Pure conjecture and wishful thinking

Its always the "just-so" stories with evo-tardism

"One lingering problem with the hypothesis that birds descended from dinosaurs had been that the most bird-like theropods occurred later in time than did Archaeopteryx.

It has been argued that this ‘temporal paradox’(how can a ‘descendant’ arise before an ‘ancestor’?) both invalidates the theropod ancestry of birds and, reversing the ancestor–descendant relationship, suggests that some of the Creta- ceous bird-like theropods actually descended from Jurassic Archaeopteryx-like birds.

In truth, the temporal paradox never seriously challenged the theropod hypothesis, because it essentially assumed that fossils like Anchiornis wouldn’t be found — arguments based on negative evidence are always dicey.

However, the notion of some Cretaceous thero- pods being secondarily flightless descend- ants of early birds remains a valid hypothesis given the common and repeated evolution of flightlessness in birds.


1: Witmer LM. Palaeontology: Feathered dinosaurs in a tangle. Nature. 2009 Oct
1;461(7264):601-2. doi: 10.1038/461601a. PubMed PMID: 19794481.

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/4616...

So, everybody

Its not birds from dinosaurs anymore

Its dinosaurs from birds

Hooray!!!!

Another great win for animalutionism!!!

More story telling....

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128507 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're quite wrong
Remember the histones?
Do you not know the difference between a stable and unstable chemical?

Here's the short lesson on it:

A stable chemical can react with other chemicals, causing the other chemicals' compositions to be altered resulting in different chemicals, but the stable chemical does not change on it's own once formed saved through the event of molecular degradation.

An unstable chemical will interact with other chemicals, and their composition will be modified as a direct result of this interaction. This is most often caused due to a weak electron bond of the atoms.

There, I educated you a very tiny bit.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128508 Apr 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and I showed a secular article that admits to C14 in Diamond. It's in there alright, all the evolutionists need is an excuse for why it's in there. So, what do they do? They define parameters and limits for measuring C14. Problem solved. Same with comets. Everyone knows they're short lived, so the need for a rescue solution, i.e., Oort Clouds and Kupier Belts. There are numerous examples of this. Take the lack of fossils to show the progression from one type to another. Fossils are so rare, problem abated. Lack of beneficial mutations to show a mechanism for evolution - look! We finally found one in nylon-eating bacteria!(Right!) You see Mugwump, from my perspective, these are all thin excuses and you evolutionist can't seem to see the big picture. You see to focus on irrelevant, inadequate minutiae. What I see is that C14 is found in all ancient samples; comets are short-lived and not being replaced; millions of stasis and living fossils and no intermediates; numerous deleterious mutational errors that cause disease and no true beneficial ones. To me the evidence is overwhelming (I hate use that word but can't think of a better one) that macroevolution never happened. Don't hate me for what I think because I think that way because in my mind that is how the logic adds up. It also happens to support my faith, but my faith and the Bible are corroborative to the scientific evidence. Now you know that my faith in Jesus and His word is the MOST important thing but that is a separate issue. But I see that it ALL (science, history, faith, wisdom, knowledge, etc.) fits together harmoneously. So we come back to the C14 claim. Is it really scientific to place ideological and literal limits on the quantifiability of a highly measurable substance? I think that's a problem. We CAN eliminate errors due to contamination. We can distinguish between modern C14 and ancient C14. We can accurately measure C14 all the way back to the point when it should be undetectable. And when we do that it provides results consistent with that of a YOUNG EARTH. DOn't shoot the messenger, I am just looking at and interpreting the evidence. And it just so happens that it agrees with what the Bible says. What is wrong with that?
What you call excuses is in fact supporting my point. It what science does - evaluates new evidence and tries to explain it and (if necessary)amend or overturn a theory. The fact that you reject it doesn't make any less so.

But without getting into the details of C14, SP comets as they have been extensively discussed already - it comes back to my original point.

Secular science (actually lets just call it science) evaluates new evidence and grows

Creation science (as demonstrated by creation.com ) simply ignores contrary evidence (unashamedly) and doesn't grow.

Here is a hypothetical question :

If god himself came down from upon high and declared that actually evolution was simply his method of creating diversity - would creation.com tell him he was wrong because he was contradicting scripture?

Anyway short reply as we have an unexpected spell of sun so am going to sit in the park and read a book (a paper one as well - what a Luddite)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128509 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
My analogy uses YOUR argument
So it is entirely relevant
If you argue on the basis of modern construction near the site of ancient Tyre that ancient Phoenician Tyre has been rebuilt....
Which is what you are doing
Then you have to accept, like a fool, that ancient Pompeii has been rebuilt since a modern Pompei exists with modern constructions and people
No, it doesn't Squishy. Pompei and Pompeii are next to each other, they are not the same city. The Tyre in the ocean is the same as the Tyre of old. By reusing the same old idiotic pointless claim for about the fourth or fifth time after having it pointed out to you that it was a totally idiotic argument you as much as admitted defeat.

Even your sources admit that the island Tyre of today is the same as the island Tyre of old.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#128510 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "feathers and proto-feathers" have been shown to be collagen fibres, Batgirl
--Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T., and Hinchliffe, J.R., Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence, J. Morphology 266:125–166, 2005 | DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382; Published Online: 10 October 2005
So you did not actually read the articles?
"In closing, we offer an interim attempt to define
the most salient features of Aves morphologically.
Birds are mesotarsal bipedal archosaurs with pen-
naceous feathers, and a tridactyl avian hand com-
posed of digits 2-3-4."
"and "microraptors represent a remnant
of an early avian radiation, exemplifying all stages
of flight and flightlessness, and
Caudipteryx
and
oviraptosaurs are secondarily flightless birds, and in
that sense derived, not basal."


Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bir...
[QUOTE who="Russell"]<qu oted text>
Lingham-Soliar, T., Alan Feduccia, A. and Wang, X., A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres, Proc. Royal Soc. B | doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0352, Published online 23 May 2007
In this case, referring to THIS fossil, it is quite correct to say these are NOT protofeathers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128511 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The writer of the Book of Ezekiel, ultimately God Himself, said the mainland settlement of TYRE
What's wrong with you?
Double wrong idiot.

Zeke never once said "the mainland settlement" of Tyre. Now you are lying for Jesus and you know it. You would have included a quote such as this along with a proper link. You know and I know that the first sign a creatard is lying in a debate is when they quote without proper links:

Ezekiel 26 4-6: 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

There you have it Tyre is the city in the sea, her unnamed and relatively less important settlements are on the land. It refers to "her settlements" not to "the mainland settlement of Tyre". I doubt if you can find a translation that even uses that phrase.

Blasphemous lies from our creatard friend rusty. Not only breaking his own 9th Commandment. You have to make it a twofer. I will even make it easy for you here is a link to many different versions of Ezekiel 26 6:

http://bible.cc/ezekiel/26-6.htm

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#128512 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
Please see here for a comprehensive list of older papers verifying soft tissues in "fossils"
http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/news/din...

What is this for?

We know that anaerobic, dehydrated, oxygen free, antiseptic environments that are hermetically sealed can preserve things nearly forever.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#128513 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
As far as PHEX binding proving the birds evolved from dinosaurs---->
J Wiley says:
"....the research indicates that when it comes to the PHEX protein, birds and dinosaurs are very similar. Does that support the dinosaur to bird hypothesis? It depends.
Sometimes, similarity in proteins is considered evidence for common ancestry. Sometimes, however, it is not. For example, the main protein behind echolocation in bats is nearly identical to the corresponding protein in dolphins.
However, that doesn’t support the “bats to dolphins” hypothesis (or the “dolphins to bats” hypothesis), because no evolutionist wants to think that bats and dolphins are closely related.
As a result, it is explained away as an example of convergent evolution.
So I suspect that most evolutionists will use the similarity in these PHEX proteins to support the birds to dinosaurs hypothesis, but only because it is convenient. If, later on, it is determined that birds and dinosaurs are not closely related, the similarity in the PHEX proteins will be explained away as convergent evolution."
==========I so agree
That 'just so' evo-story telling never ends
==========
The fact is that proteins and DNA can't last millions of years
Dino fossils are much much younger
No amount of hypothesizing can change that
----------GAME OVER----------

You are just quoting another creationist doing another op ed piece.

Who cares?

It tells us nothing except we have a "scientist" who is not even as up on the research as many of us here are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128514 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
This find actually shows that flight was much more advanced......read ALREADY IN EXISTENCE........at the time
Nothing new for creationists
You still have to explain
1) How feathers evolved
2) How flight evolved not once but 3 times independently
----------
Insurmountable issues.....
----------
Evolution is a huge failure
It is not science
It does not fulfill any of the requirements of science
The fossil record is bereft of evidence for evolution
Nothing remotely resembling evolution is observed anywhere EVER
Not in the lab
Not in nature
To argue otherwise is futile
----------
To explain away fresh tissues in what should be 65 million year old samples.....YOU HAVE TO DEFY SCIENCE
You are a font of misinformation and ignorance aren't you Squishy?

First off feathers originally had nothing to do with flight. So the fact that several different lines had feathers is not a problem at all. It looks like feathers were first evolved either as a temperature regulator or as a display mechanism. Or in all probability both. Aura linked a very good article on feather evolution. Again, fine body features such as feathers are very hard to track since they don't preserve very well. We do not have tons of feather fossils so every time a new one is found the paleontological world gets very excited.

Now we don't "have" to explain anything. The evolution of flight is a small subset of evolution. We don't have to have all of the answers to know we are right. What you are demanding is a version of "the God of the gaps". By demanding this you are breaking the First Commandment rusty.

The fossil record supports only the theory of evolution. Once again, creationists have no explanation for it that is not easily debunked. If you really want to look like a fool you will try to explain the fossil record from a creationist paradigm.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#128515 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
You're completely
And utterly
WRONG
Read the Bible
Read history
Put two and two together
Its so easy
Doesn't Church of God teach you anything?

I notice that you are not able to dispute or offer evidence that is not in line with my analysis.

Your problem is that you're wrong.

You're completely
And utterly
WRONG
Read the Bible
Read history
Put two and two together
Its so easy

When you do your analysis will match mine.

Try again if you like. You have nothing and seem to know that.

1. The "Prophecy" was made AFTER the city was seized by Nebby.

2. Lest go verse by verse

26:1 - When the prophecy was given. Note that it is AFTER the actual attack by Nebbys troops.

26:2 - Why

27:3 - God is ticked

27:4 - Failed. Never happened.

27:5 - Failed. Island still exists.

27:6 - Check ..... actually happened.

26:7 Check.... actually happened.

26:8 Check

26:9 Failed. He never destroyed the walls to the city nor the towers of the city. The little village towns were sacked, but these have been described as "suburbs". These were lower class workers. They provided food and supplies to the gentry that lived in the city.

26:10 Failed. Nebby failed to enter the city abet not without trying. Tyre agreed to pay tribute and probably only did that because their supplies were cut off.

26:11 Probably failed. This again seems to be referring to the City, not the surrounding village.

26:12 Epic Fail. The wealth, the walls, the fine houses were all on in the island city where Nebby never entered.

26:13 Cannot be determined. Maybe they had to pay the harps as part of the tribute. Most likely another failure.

26:14 Grand Imperial Pooh Bah of failures.

26:15 - 26:18 Also seems clear enough who is being talked about,... again; "men of the sea"

26:19 Complete, utter and total failure. Tyre is still above water. In fact it is larger now than in Phonetician times.

26:20 Failed.

26:21 Epic failure. We know where it is and it is still inhabited.

I hope this clears things up.

If one part fails then the whole prophecy fails,.... right?

If just a few periods and a comma happen to be in the right place that does not make the "prophecy" true, does it?

Do you think?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128516 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
As far as PHEX binding proving the birds evolved from dinosaurs---->
J Wiley says:
"....the research indicates that when it comes to the PHEX protein, birds and dinosaurs are very similar. Does that support the dinosaur to bird hypothesis? It depends.
Sometimes, similarity in proteins is considered evidence for common ancestry. Sometimes, however, it is not. For example, the main protein behind echolocation in bats is nearly identical to the corresponding protein in dolphins.
However, that doesn’t support the “bats to dolphins” hypothesis (or the “dolphins to bats” hypothesis), because no evolutionist wants to think that bats and dolphins are closely related.
As a result, it is explained away as an example of convergent evolution.
So I suspect that most evolutionists will use the similarity in these PHEX proteins to support the birds to dinosaurs hypothesis, but only because it is convenient. If, later on, it is determined that birds and dinosaurs are not closely related, the similarity in the PHEX proteins will be explained away as convergent evolution."
==========I so agree
That 'just so' evo-story telling never ends
==========
The fact is that proteins and DNA can't last millions of years
Dino fossils are much much younger
No amount of hypothesizing can change that
----------GAME OVER----------
Nope, you admitted to lying by breaking rule number one for creatards:

All quotes must have appropriate links. What do you want to bet that if I chase down the origin of this quote that I find it was written by another creatard idiot?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128517 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "feathers and proto-feathers" have been shown to be collagen fibres, Batgirl
--Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T., and Hinchliffe, J.R., Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence, J. Morphology 266:125–166, 2005 | DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382; Published Online: 10 October 2005
AND
Lingham-Soliar, T., Alan Feduccia, A. and Wang, X., A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres, Proc. Royal Soc. B | doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0352, Published online 23 May 2007
Squishy, if you are so sure of yourself why do you keep breaking rule number one for creatards? I could find the second article but not the first. One thing I do know for sure is that neither you nor I are in a position to say whether the structures analyzed in that article were feathers or collagen fibers. The second article does not say all feathers found were collagen fibers. It claims only that the structure found on one species of dinosaur were collagen fibers. That may have been the case. There is debate about whether this particular critter is the first to show feathers.

So you lied by saying all protofeathers were collagen fibers. Your own articles only say that this very early example were collagen fibers. Not only that you are wrong in assuming your articles are authoritative. It seems that quite a few, if not most paleontologists disagree with your heroes. I will be the first to admit that interpreting impressions of feathers or skin can be a tricky business at times.

Please note that all of these people would be rolling on the floor laughing at you for even suggesting that a disagreement in how life evolved can in any way be used as evidence against evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128518 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where ancient Phoenician island or mainland Tyre has been rebuilt
Thanks, Batman
----------
BTW Aura is a Greek goddess
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Aura.html
Once again, all Biblical verse about Tyre refer to the island Tyre, not to a supposed land based Tyre. Zeke may have been a hallucinating fool, but he was not as big of an idiot as you are. Why did he never refer to the land based city as Tyre but always used a diminutive term for them?

Read the verses again, the island was to be scraped bare. The island was never to be rebuilt.

If idiocy were a source of power Squishy would solve the global warming threat.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#128519 Apr 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point? The fossils are on their land, they have every right to benefit from the demand for them just as we have the right to benefit from the demand of corn that we grow on our land. Why do you hate capitalism?
They (the Chicoms) are aware of the secular West's obsession with the theory of evolution and therefore are profiting from this by manufacturing fake fossils and shipping them out. This evidently got started because it is against the law (death penalty!) to remove real fossils from the country. So they make lots of fake fossils and are apparently very good at it. Even top scientists have been tricked. You'd have to do a CAT scan or other analysis (and partially destroy it in the process) to ensure they are real. But it looks like nothing out of China is real. I mean, who would take THAT chance? And yes, as Sub Zone pointed out, there have been a lot of articles regarding new fossils finds from China in the scientific press. All I have to say is Caveat Emptor.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#128520 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, all Biblical verse about Tyre refer to the island Tyre, not to a supposed land based Tyre. Zeke may have been a hallucinating fool, but he was not as big of an idiot as you are. Why did he never refer to the land based city as Tyre but always used a diminutive term for them?
Read the verses again, the island was to be scraped bare. The island was never to be rebuilt.
If idiocy were a source of power Squishy would solve the global warming threat.
The Bible very clearly refers to the land based Tyre. Give it up already. The ancient city was never restored to its former glory. The orignal site is just what the prophesy calls for. The Bible made an amazing prediction about using the ruins to build the road to the island. You are just nitpicking on your misinterpretation and burrowing in meaningless details. You can't count a small fishing village that doesn't even sit on the original soil/rock much less the geographic location as the orginal city which, included a race track that held over 20,000 which exceeds even the total population of today's town (14,000). Did you get that? The original location is bare and one of the ruins is a single ancient race track (hippodrome) that could fit more than the entire population of the current town. There's just no stretch of the imagination that could possibly conclude the prophesy was not fulfilled in every detail. This is really not about truth is it? You are motivated simply to try and discredit and undermine the Bible and you have completely failed to do so. So move on. This is getting tiresome.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#128521 Apr 28, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call excuses is in fact supporting my point. It what science does - evaluates new evidence and tries to explain it and (if necessary)amend or overturn a theory. The fact that you reject it doesn't make any less so.
But without getting into the details of C14, SP comets as they have been extensively discussed already - it comes back to my original point.
Secular science (actually lets just call it science) evaluates new evidence and grows
Creation science (as demonstrated by creation.com ) simply ignores contrary evidence (unashamedly) and doesn't grow.
Here is a hypothetical question :
If god himself came down from upon high and declared that actually evolution was simply his method of creating diversity - would creation.com tell him he was wrong because he was contradicting scripture?
Anyway short reply as we have an unexpected spell of sun so am going to sit in the park and read a book (a paper one as well - what a Luddite)
They don't ignore it, they just interpret it differently due to their different YEC worldview. Both sides do the same, respectively.

If God did that, my first question to Him would be, why did you lie to us? And I would be highly skeptical if He was really Satan deceiving us. Of course He really did come here and He told us all about His YEC. Yes, Jesus already did that. He already proved His creative powers (many and different kinds of miracles - even the ex-nihilo type - in front of many witnesses. He also confirmed the scriptures, including all the key points like the Creation, the Flood, etc., and gave us the New Testament.

Enjoy your day in the sun. That's what I'm going to do as well. Spent the last 3 weeks in the beautiful (but cold!) northern panhandle of West Virginia. So riding my beach cruiser to the beach to check out the fresh springtime talent.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#128522 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where ancient Phoenician island or mainland Tyre has been rebuilt
Thanks, Batman
----------
BTW Aura is a Greek goddess
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Aura.html
So you think that is the only definition?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aura

It was destroyed and rebuilt countless times, whether the specific empire rebuilt it is of little consequence.
It is geographically the same people who rebuilt it countless times, and did so as recently as WW2. It also carries the same name
so you argument is pointless because with that place surviving at least a half a dozen different empires has proven it's self to be greater than the political party at hand. It would still be the Tyre that existed from the start.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#128523 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad hominem attacks usually begin when the opponent has no argument
You lose Batman
Aka Aura Mithra
Aka Nimrod
Those aren't ad hominem attacks. Maybe if you understood what ad hominem attacks are, you'd make more sense.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#128524 Apr 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't ignore it, they just interpret it differently due to their different YEC worldview.
Right. They apply their bias to the evidence, and demand that everything conform to it no matter what.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Both sides do the same, respectively.
Wrong. If evidence directly contradicted our understanding of the universe, the first thing that would be done is to make sure there WASN'T bias. Then, the next thing that would be done is to make sure there wasn't anything creating a false reading or indication. Then, it would be investigated to understand why it gives that reading or indication. When that cause is discovered, if it reveals some inherent error in our understanding of the universe, our understanding of the universe will change.

You can't say the same for creationists. Their understanding of the Bible won't change no matter what evidence is presented, because they've already decided how things have to be, and the universe is obligated to conform to that understanding. That's exactly UNscience. Call it whatever you want, but that's what it is. When your understanding is dogmatic rather than tentative, you're a zealot, not a scientist. That is why the crap that comes out of DI, AIG, ICR, et al is not science.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
If God
The billion dollar question. Work on that one, and when you have evidence, share it. Presuppositional apologetics is a dishonest pursuit.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#128525 Apr 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/0240...
You utterly wrong about Tyre
But then 'wrong' is your default-setting
Your 'apologetics' is trash, Dogem

I am sorry the facts do not support your assertions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 93,406
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 6 hr Rose_NoHo 85
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr was auch immer 167,960
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 9 hr was auch immer 1,156
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 hr superwilly 6,056
List what Evolution Discoveries have helped SCI... 14 hr MIDutch 14
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 14 hr Rose_NoHo 27