It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 151284 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

KAB

United States

#113984 Apr 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I DID mention that. Why didn't you READ that? Because your cult does not allow you to think for yourself or to truly understand! Go figure!
The NWT explanation of the use of brackets is clearly given in, of all places, the explanatory material in the volume.
Here it is again. Lets see if you can catch it this time. I won't hold my breath.
Dogen wrote:
More for KAB to run from:
"The Watchtower Society claims that certain words are inserted with [brackets] within
the New World Translation to make for smoother reading in English. They also claim
these "inserted words" do not change the meaning of the original text. "
RE: New World Translation.Colossians 1:16,17
The verses here from Colossians
are a striking example of the
Watchtower Society's intentional
alteration of the actual Greek
Scriptures. The word [other] was
inserted four times to make it
appear that Jesus was created
first by Jehovah, and then Jesus
was used by Jehovah to create all
other things in the universe. This
is of course to support their
unorthodox teachings that Jesus
was merely a created being and
not God."
"Interestingly, within the Watchtower Society's own
publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation
of the Greek Scriptures) the word "other" does not
appear within the actual Greek translation of
Colossians 1:16 and 17."
"How can the Society acknowledge the original Greek text, yet insert a word that clearly
does not belong? The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (the
above publication that all Jehovah's Witnesses should spend more time reading)
includes an appendix for the reader to understand why the Society interprets the
Scriptures the way they do. However, the Society's translation of these particular verses
from Colossians do not contain an explanation of the insertion [other]. The reader is
simply cross-referenced to the verses at Luke 11:41,42, where they will also see the
word [other] erroneously inserted with no explanation as to why?"
http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/neww ...
Leave "other" out if you prefer. That's an option which brackets allow. What does Colossians 1:15 tell you?

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#113985 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand perfectly. Why question what you already believe?
As to changing my mind, don't sell yourself short. Confirming data changes my mind in a heartbeat. That's primarily how I got to where I am, and that will continue to be the case. I believe what I believe because I challenged what I use to believe, and I continue to challenge what I believe.
You may also note that my inquiry regarding Dogen has nothing to do with his beliefs. I would do the same if he was on my side. My take is that his approach is seriously flawed. The scary part is that, at least according to him, he's in a position to influence others' mental health!
Please excuse me for the tardiness. I don't get much time these days.

Instead of Dogen's approach, let us talk about yours. I have praised your debating talents many times. You are able to survive and thrive in this forum where there is essentially no moderator or judge to control what is going on. Will you have the same success if there were an impartial, honest judge/moderator who will call on you whenever you play fast and loose with data?

I think not. But in this unmoderated forum, with your skill with language and ability to twist any data in your favor, you often frustrate your opponents.

Do you really challenge what you believe? I don't think so.
KAB

United States

#113986 Apr 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
PUT THE GOAL POSTS,.......BACK!
Here again you are trying to use deception, deceit, smoke and mirrors while you run away from the issues.
http://www.soundwitness.org/jw/a_glaring_exam...
IFF the link was ONLY talking about Jesus quotes of OT scripture then you have a point. What would be the chances of that happening?
Here is another example of where your dishonesty, lack of knowledge and programming will not allow you to actually address issues.
So craven.
So cowardly.
So sad.
It's good, and important, that you acknowledge Jesus would have used God's name when quoting Hebrew scriptures since those scriptures use it. Thus, when his apostles and other first century disciples quoted Jesus, they too would have used it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113987 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the same data as that alluded to by those asserting that nothing has changed.
Then as that data indicates "nothing has changed" - or at the very least has not DRASTICALLY changed, you now contend that the mountains DID NOT grow by tens of thousands of feet and the oceans DID NOT become significantly deeper - so why did you allege that earlier?
Is the 9th Commandment merely a conditional suggestion?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113988 Apr 15, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR ANSWER: C. ChromiuMan conditionally both accepts and rejects components of your opinions regarding "absolute truths" and this concludes your logic validates the law of contradiction.
Once again, you cannot choose “accepts” and “rejects” and conclude them both as the answer to the “same” specific question you are attempting to answer.
Nature does not contradict its self (people do) and you are putting up information that does and you’re trying to apply it to how nature works.
You can keep on thinking nature contradicts itself and keep applying your (law of contradiction) flawed logic to nature, and I will continue to apply my (law of non-contradiction) flawless logic to nature.
It’s amazing the distances you will go to try and convince someone that nature contradicts it’s self like you contradict yourself.
There are only two types of opposite logics you can apply your thinking to when explaining how nature works:
1. The law of non-contradiction when you speak of it.
2. The law of contradiction to nature when you speak of it.
You choose number two to apply your logic to when applying it to nature and this is where your thinking is flawed because nature do not contradict its self.
Here's how your black and white universe seems to work.
I write:
C. ChromiuMan conditionally both accepts and rejects components of your opinions regarding "absolute truths"

and you rewrite that in your head as:
C: ChromiuMan both accepts and rejects the entirety of anything and everything Infinite Force says simultaneously, and since Infinite Force is absolutely correct 100% of the time in all things, and has "discovered" a "Law" that supports that egocentric extremism Infinite Force has had since birth, ChromiuiMan is a dim-witted paradox.

In your unbalanced obsession with trying to "win" and be "right" by harping on non-contradiction, you completely FAIL to understand or use the law (and apparently many others you are as yet ignorant of) in context, and in doing so continue to be a walking contradiction yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113989 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite the island city specification in the prophecy.

Deliberate density is dishonesty. Dishonesty is lying.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113990 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't demonstrated that the prophecy was wrong. You have instead made assertions about it which you have not confirmed using specific citations from the prophecy. For example, you have not provided a statement from the prophecy specifying application only to the island city or even, beyond the prophecy, that only the island city was known as Tyre.

Who does the bible say will destroy Tyre?

Who actually does so?

Game set and match.

KAB

United States

#113991 Apr 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is funny to watch you pretend to answer questions that you can not actually answer. SZ just ripped you a new one and you just gloss over it and pretend it did not happen.
and I notice you didn't use the scriptures to confirm your assertions.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The error is on your part. The Tyre prophesy always referred to the island city. Not the smaller less important land based city.
Conflating the two like the authors of that article have is the same as conflating Newark, New Jersey for New York, New York.
Plus Alexander the Great was the wrong conqueror. He was about 300 years too late. The conqueror who never defeated Tyre, and yet was supposed to was Nebuchadnezzar. Earlier Chimney1 used the example of predicting that you would see a red car on a rainy day. Trying to stretch out Zeke's prediction that long in a war torn area is on the same order as Chimney1's prediction. The fact that it came true is not surprising at all.
So the city of Tyre is still alive and healthy. The hamlet that was scrapped was never the city of the prophecy. That is a doub
I love it when you make the "didn't provide confirmation challenge".

Here are some Ezekiel 26:3-5 details: 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said,‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. 4 And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. 5 For I myself have spoken, is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, and she must become an object of plunder for the nations. 12 And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.

Note "many nations", not just Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar). Note "scrape her dust away", "bare surface", and "your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water." Note "object of plunder for the nations".

Not exactly "red Mercedes, rainy day" imprecise considering how events unfolded.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113992 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when you make the "didn't provide confirmation challenge".
Here are some Ezekiel 26:3-5 details: 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said,‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. 4 And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. 5 For I myself have spoken, is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, and she must become an object of plunder for the nations. 12 And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.
Note "many nations", not just Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar). Note "scrape her dust away", "bare surface", and "your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water." Note "object of plunder for the nations".
Not exactly "red Mercedes, rainy day" imprecise considering how events unfolded.
Yes, many nations were predicted, but the head of those was supposed to be Nebby. Nebby failed. The city stood for 300 more years.

The fact that someone eventually would defeat Tyre was not the prediction.

Once again, by opening up the timeline that long the so called prophecy becomes the equivalent of "You will see a red car today."
KAB

United States

#113993 Apr 15, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Supporting evidence does not work that way.
A theory, such as "WW Flood in the last 10,000 years", needs only ONE instance of verified falsification, to be fully falsified. If ONE thing shows it could NOT have happened, then it does not matter how many other things say it COULD have happened.
This is true of all theories.
Even if your Canadian evidence was consistent with a WW Flood, it would not prove it because there are other explanations for that evidence. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that shows there CANNOT have been a WW Flood.
So that's it. WW Flood is ruled out.
Scientific theories suffer from this asymmetry always. No amount of evidence can prove them, only support them, but ONE verified piece of evidence can falsify them. That includes the theory of evolution too BTW.
I agree with the principles you relate, but as always you still provide no data confirming the flood could not have happened. As you correctly noted, it only takes one data point, so why not provide one and conclude the matter?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113994 Apr 15, 2013
Oh, and they did not "scrape her dust away" Though Tyre is still an active healthy city some of the ruins of the past are preserved. People do tend to rebuild as time goes on, so ruins over 2,000 years old tend to be a rarity. Also it was supposedly "never to be inhabited again". It looks pretty inhabited to me.

So KAB, why did you ignore my post where I both quoted the verse from the Bible, what key verses never came true, and where I gave a link to you that describes modern day Tyre?

Is it easier for you to pretend that did not happen?
KAB

United States

#113995 Apr 15, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
"... along the core. These are obtained by pattern matching of recorded parameters to either absolutely dated paleoclimatic records, or to insolation variations. We show that this new time scale is in excellent agreement with the Dome Fuji andVostok ice core time scales back to 100 kyr within 1 kyr. Discrepancies larger than 3 kyr arise during MIS 5.4, 5.5 and 6, which points to anomalies in either snow accumulation or mechanical flow during these time periods. We estimate that EDC3 gives accurate event durations within 20%(2 sigma) back to MIS11 and accurate absolute ages with a maximum uncertainty of 6 kyr back to 800 kyr."
In case someone wanted to read the rest of the paragraph.
Thank you for providing that passage, as it shows that the things they used for correlation are things which fall far short of 800 kyr.
KAB

United States

#113996 Apr 15, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Presumed success of prophecies seems to be directly related to one's flexibility of interpretation.
If there had been no scraping bare and throwing into the sea as instrumental in the fulfillment then it would definitely be a failed prophecy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113997 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If there had been no scraping bare and throwing into the sea as instrumental in the fulfillment then it would definitely be a failed prophecy.
Are you claiming that your God is nearsighted and could not see in his prophecy that the object "scraped" was not city that he predicted that would be scraped. Or that people would continue to live there to this date when it was predicted that it would never be inhabited today.

Again, the odds that any city would be overthrown in that area during that time period over a 300 year period approaches one.

In other words it is akin to making the "you will see a red car prophesy".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113998 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when you make the "didn't provide confirmation challenge".
Here are some Ezekiel 26:3-5 details: 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said,‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. 4 And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. 5 For I myself have spoken, is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, and she must become an object of plunder for the nations. 12 And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.
Note "many nations", not just Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar). Note "scrape her dust away", "bare surface", and "your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water." Note "object of plunder for the nations".
Not exactly "red Mercedes, rainy day" imprecise considering how events unfolded.
7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[b] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord."

You're a loony. It plainly says Nebuchadnezzar. Wrong king, dumbass!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113999 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when you make the "didn't provide confirmation challenge".
Here are some Ezekiel 26:3-5 details: 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said,‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. 4 And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. 5 For I myself have spoken, is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, and she must become an object of plunder for the nations. 12 And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.
Note "many nations", not just Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar). Note "scrape her dust away", "bare surface", and "your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water." Note "object of plunder for the nations".
Not exactly "red Mercedes, rainy day" imprecise considering how events unfolded.

Another failure.

First of all you are apparently using an exceptionally poor translation. I will use a more accurate one AND I will not quotemine the bible! In other words I will not take the bible out of context like the sinners (JWs, et al). do.

First, the text:

26 Now in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said concerning Jerusalem,‘Aha, the gateway of the peoples is broken; it has [a]opened to me. I shall be filled, now that she is laid waste,’ 3 therefore thus says the Lord [YHWH]God,‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. 5 She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,’ declares the Lord God,‘and she will become spoil for the nations. 6 Also her daughters who are [c]on the mainland will be slain by the sword, and they will know that I am the Lord.’”

7 For thus says the Lord God,“Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and [d]a great army. 8 He will slay your daughters [e]on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you. 9 The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his [f]axes he will break down your towers. 10 Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and [g]wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground. 12 Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and [h]throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water. 13 So I will [i]silence the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken,” declares the Lord God.

15 Thus says the Lord God to Tyre,“Shall not the coastlands shake at the sound of your fall when the wounded groan, when the slaughter occurs in your midst? 16 Then all the princes of the sea will go down from their thrones, remove their robes and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with [j]trembling; they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be appalled at you. 17 They will take up a lamentation over you and say to you,

----------
End part 1
----------

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114000 Apr 15, 2013
17 They will take up a lamentation over you and say to you,

‘How you have perished, O inhabited one,
From the seas, O renowned city,
Which was mighty on the sea,
She and her inhabitants,
Who [k]imposed [l]her terror
On all her inhabitants!
18 ‘Now the coastlands will tremble
On the day of your fall;
Yes, the coastlands which are by the sea
Will be terrified at your passing.’”

19 For thus says the Lord God,“When I make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lower parts of the earth, like the ancient waste places, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not [m]be inhabited; but I will set glory in the land of the living. 21 I will [n]bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,” declares the Lord God.
Footnotes:

Ezekiel 26:2 Lit turned
Ezekiel 26:3 Heb YHWH, usually rendered Lord, and so throughout the ch
Ezekiel 26:6 Lit in the field
Ezekiel 26:7 Lit an assembly, even many people
Ezekiel 26:8 Lit in the field
Ezekiel 26:9 Lit swords
Ezekiel 26:10 Lit wheels
Ezekiel 26:12 Lit put
Ezekiel 26:13 Lit cause to cease
Ezekiel 26:16 Lit tremblings
Ezekiel 26:17 Lit put
Ezekiel 26:17 Lit their
Ezekiel 26:20 Or return
Ezekiel 26:21 Lit give you terrors

----------

Ezekiel 26 NASB

----------

Now, with the full text from a worthy source we can see a number of things.

Now, lets look at verses 7 - 12. In the place of pronouns I am going to use the proper noun being referred to. That is valid, is it not?

7 For thus says the Lord God,“Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and [d]a great army. 8 [Nebuchadnezzar] will slay your daughters [e]on the mainland with the sword; and [Nebuchadnezzar] will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you. 9 The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with [Nebuchadnezzar's][f]axes [Nebuchadnezzar] will break down your towers. 10 Because of the multitude of [Nebuchadnezzar's] horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and [g]wagons and chariots when [Nebuchadnezzar] enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses [Nebuchadnezzar] will trample all your streets.[Nebuchadnezzar] will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground. 12 Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and [h]throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water.

So, now we see, and this should have stood out before this, what, in fact NEVER HAPPENED.

Thus, this prophecy is as false and the JW prophecies.


You bring this stuff on yourself, you know. You were doing better when you refused to supply data, because when you do you get it all wrong.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114001 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with the principles you relate, but as always you still provide no data confirming the flood could not have happened. As you correctly noted, it only takes one data point, so why not provide one and conclude the matter?

Gee, he probably thought that proving the flood DID not happen was good enough.

BUT, I HAVE provided the data you seek and you FAILED (in a most cowardly fashion) to respond to it.


Maybe this will jar your sad memory.

And yet in 4,000+ years no one has an explanation for:

1. Where did the water come from?

2. Where did the water go?

3. How did civilizations continue through this period, unaffected?

4. How did fragile items survive?

5. Why is there not water damage inside of all older structures (great pyramid)?

6. How did water soluble "paint's" used in cave and cliff paintings manage to survive?

7. Why is there absolutely no tangible evidence of a global flood to be found?

8. Why are there no modern fish fossils on dry land?

9. How did animals get from their homes to the Ark?

10. How did animals get from the ark back to their homes?


That should give you a start.

Where do you want to cherry pick? Or will you just evade the entire issue (again).

Dishonest much?

---------
look at all familiar?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114002 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for providing that passage, as it shows that the things they used for correlation are things which fall far short of 800 kyr.

Did you really not understand Madrone's statement or are you just trying to lie your way out again?



MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
"... along the core. These are obtained by pattern matching of recorded parameters to either absolutely dated paleoclimatic records, or to insolation variations. We show that this new time scale is in excellent agreement with the Dome Fuji andVostok ice core time scales back to 100 kyr within 1 kyr. Discrepancies larger than 3 kyr arise during MIS 5.4, 5.5 and 6, which points to anomalies in either snow accumulation or mechanical flow during these time periods. We estimate that EDC3 gives accurate event durations within 20%(2 sigma) back to MIS11 and accurate absolute ages with a maximum uncertainty of 6 kyr back to 800 kyr."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114003 Apr 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If there had been no scraping bare and throwing into the sea as instrumental in the fulfillment then it would definitely be a failed prophecy.

so you admit it was a failed prophecy.

Well done. You managed to suggest a truth even though you were actually attempting to lie at the time.

I call this the 'broken clock effect'.

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) 1 min The Northener 34,072
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 min ChristineM 14,843
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min Aura Mytha 199,194
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 7 hr DanFromSmithville 31
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri Don Barros Serrano 179,706
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web