Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64090 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on Subby, show me how your manipulated models retract that the data shows limits to the benefits of beneficial mutations.
They don't. They simply invent models to project on that MAY present a scenario that is real and that is all. The data, is the data, despite any hubris about neutrality.
You start challenges you cannot conclude.
Come on, You keep saying you have made such wonderful posts. Where are they?
That article makes no such claims. Again, you keep misunderstanding articles. Even when you hunt in the fringes you keep coming up with nothing.

Once again those writers do not indicate that they believe in any sort of limit. You have failed to show that they are wrong in any way and are merely taking statements out of context.

When it comes to your arguments there is no "there" there.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#64091 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can impress with what is called data and evidence you likely can't understand and you can offer verbal diarrhoea and farts out of your mouth. Look at the difference......
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.
You have had bad experiences with false religion. There is 1 true religion that adheres to righteousness. A God of order supplies this. See the universe and see His way. If you are humble enough to search and really find the true God, you will. You will indeed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64092 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you haven't. At least not that I have seen.
So where is your cretinist paper?
And I am willing to discuss any subject. You are the one doing a hit an run here.
Ok, we'll stick to one, the falsification of junk dna being the validation of a creationist prediction made before your recent findings.

Here is an evo biochemist quacker that refers to the IDers speaking to their creo prediction in a book.

"Sorry Michael, it is true. The genomes of many complex multicellular organisms have vast quantities of DNA that serves no purpose. It's junk. The whole argument of your book just collapsed, as did any argument for intelligent design."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/12/junk-...

Here he is again making a fool out of himself.

"I have consistently maintained that there's plenty of evidence for junk DNA and those scientists who dismiss the concept are wrong. In my review of The Myth of Junk DNA I specifically addressed the claims of the ENCODE project based on their 2007 pilot study"

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/encod...

I wonder what he'll have to say about the more recent research. Ignore it, I suppose.

John Sanford in 2005 Next, in chapeter 5 of Genetic Entropy debunks the junk-DNA and pseudo-gene myth and suggests that all dna will be found to be functional.

And best of all..from 1998

"Debating this physical anthropologist, Bob Enyart was just a Christian fundamentalist talk show host who spoke from his biblical worldview. Bob argued that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. After this 1998 debate, the next decade of explosive genetic discoveries overwhelmingly validated this creationist perspective, so much so that aside from coding for 20,500 proteins, it is estimated that the remainder of the genome has approximately four million other functional regulatory segments of DNA. So much for junk"

http://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-not-junk

Creationists have ALWAYS maintained that non coding dna will be found to be functional in time and that has been validated no matter how ignorant you are. We had to make that prediction because evolutionary non functional left overs were great evidence against creationism and good support for TOE. Now it's..Too bad for evos!

Don't you evos thrive on junk and evolutionary left overs? Doesn't evolution even need functionless left overs?

Why did TOE love functionless left overs before but now the opposite means zilch to them? Hmmm!

So I have dug up an example of a creationist speaking to creationists prediction that junk dna will eventually be found to be functional. Hence a creo prediction has been validated.

Now what have you as an evolutionist got to say about non coding dna? Oh let me guess. Nothing, it will be easier to be ignorant and struggle.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64093 Dec 8, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have had bad experiences with false religion. There is 1 true religion that adheres to righteousness. A God of order supplies this. See the universe and see His way. If you are humble enough to search and really find the true God, you will. You will indeed.
If I wanted to preach I'd go elsewhere. The true God does not care about the evolution/creation debate, He already knows. I am still curious.

I am here to see how evos can justify their incredible egos with science. So far I have found no justification with most evos being happy to talk philosophy or make challenges and then hide.

I don't really care how God created I just dislike the evoegomaniacs and like to dual with them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64094 Dec 8, 2012
And most evolutionists have also claimed that most "junk DNA" would have a use found associated with it top.

The problem is that it is not looking too good for creationists. We have found that many of these "junk DNA" genes are old genes that have been turned off.A chicken with genes for teeth, scales, a dinosaur type tail, and hands, or to be more specific claws on the front of its wings does not make much sense in the Creationist paradigm, where it makes perfect sense in the evolutionary one. And you do know that those genes have been found and turned back on in experiments, don't you?

So first you should quit trying to characterize what evolutionists believe. Second you should perhaps read the articles you link better. Though Moran did use the term "junk DNA" he proposes that a lot of the "junk" would have had a use in the past. I have not seen anything that Encode has done that really upsets his claims yet. Most "junk DNA" is merely a space keeper, even according to Encode it does not have much in the way of actual uses. In other words the use of old DNA has been modified from protein building to place keeping. So according to many it would still be "junk".

So where are your creationist models that say junk DNA would be useful when that use is reflected in the forms that the distant ancestors of the animal had.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64095 Dec 8, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
The Creation story is a Bronze Age myth. This shouldn't even be a debate in the 21st Century. The Creation myth has plants growing before the sun exists. Come on people, think like adults!
Simon Sebag Montefiore.

Welcome to the REAL world of the 21st century.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64096 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If I wanted to preach I'd go elsewhere. The true God does not care about the evolution/creation debate, He already knows. I am still curious.
I am here to see how evos can justify their incredible egos with science. So far I have found no justification with most evos being happy to talk philosophy or make challenges and then hide.
I don't really care how God created I just dislike the evoegomaniacs and like to dual with them.
In other words Maz is admitting that she has nothing. She has no real beliefs except for a luddite hatred of science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64097 Dec 8, 2012
And Maz, what of ERV's? Those were never counted as "junk DNA" since they were recognized very early for what they are. Do you have an explanation for them that will not leave us rolling in the aisles?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#64098 Dec 8, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually--the newer books just give MORE credence and verification--to much of what was written in the older books!!
(but you have to READ these types books FIRST, to realize that!)
Sorry guy I only read science. I've *really* tried to read some apologetics, theological, and philosophical stuff, but found myself disagreeing or seeing known lies and/or half truths on practically every page.

Regarding the Exodus and Joshua's non-existent conquests, Google the name Ze'ev Herzog and check out his works. Ze’ev Herzog, is an Israeli archaeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog has been the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005. He is perhaps the most famous Israeli who has said that there was no Exodus and Joshua never conquered all those cities.
http://www.hayadan.org.il/bible-no-evidence-2...

Another one you can check is Israel Finkelstein He is an Israeli archaeologist and academic. He is currently the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University and is also the co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel. Previously, he served as Director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University from 1996-2002. He wrote a very popular and influential book *The Bible Unearthed* wherein he lays out the evidence, piece by piece, for the way the Hebrews and their society actually did form. http://isfn.skytech.co.il/

If you get in to some really deep research on the Exodus subject you will find that for many many years it has been reported in some circles that there has NEVER been ANY tangible proof found for the Exodus...anywhere. Israel had possession of the Sinai peninsula for years after the 6 day war against Egypt and they THOROUGHLY scoured the area for evidence

Considering that it is now thought that Moses never wrote the Pentateuch and what was written was around the time of the Hebrew exile in Babylon, circa. 700-500 BC (Moses supposedly 1400+- BC) we find that one more strike against the story

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#64099 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so back to arch now.
Listen buddy, the fact is that your idiot researchers have found modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya that they don't know what to do with. So they blab around and try to show how a feathered dinosaur that had no reversed hallux is suposed to mean something to anyone that cares and invent a mythical theropod that is undiscovered to address the avian footprints instead. Well done geese!.
I can clearly demonstrate what is a bird with one single feature, a reversed hallux, while you lot of evos are still chasing your tails.
One day you will realize that trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory does not equal evidence for creation. That will be a momentous occasion. Pointing out one small, inconsequential thing and ignoring the plethora of evidence for evolution is dishonest and desperate. Why do you even care so much? Can't you still enjoy your god and your religion without frantically trying to disprove one of the most successful theories in modern science? It's akin to some idiot trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth because his holy book told him so. Oh wait, you guys already did that. Didn't work out too well.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#64100 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have and that is that the genome will not contain junk dna. God had no need to make junk and creos propoed this as soon as you idiots came up with it. Are you too stupid to know that? Or you know it but farting in evasion feels better, does it?
You are warped Subby. What happended to your offer to pick a subject, non coding dna, that you were going to tell me all about and show me I was wrong being my point 1? Were you just farting in the wind, as usual?
What about the misrepresentation of the dino wish bone and a modern bird wishbone and the mythical theropod that explains 212myo reversed hallux, that you hope to ignore.
Wipe that egg off your face you evos that in total went on about junk dna. You had zilck to quack on about and now you want it to go away just like your other falsification. Falsifiactions prove you evos don't know what you are talking about. You cannot win a trick and now you wish to play the ignorant card.
Would you like to gobble on about junk dna and tell me the predictions TOE made? Lets do number 1 of 6 again and lets see just who can support themselves. I'll bet I can dig up some old relic that demonstrates a creo prediction before you boofheads found the opposite of your theories.
Make up your mind what you want to talk about, because so far you are just making bad smells and making me offers you run off about.
What's the latest now? Are you evos going to change the meaning of 'evolutionary left overs' now to mean functional with different function. Oh heck! Where have we heard that tail chasing desperation before?
Do you have a personality disorder of some sort? Why do you constantly regurgitate the same talking points over, and over, and over, and over again? Seriously, I'm curious. All it takes is one comment for you to launch into a "summary" of the debate.(Debate is not really an accurate description, it's more of a showcase for your ignorance)

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#64101 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, we'll stick to one, the falsification of junk dna being the validation of a creationist prediction made before your recent findings.
Creationists DON'T F_CKING MAKE PREDICTIONS YOU GOD DAMN IDIOT.

There. Sorry. You say that so much, and it really gets on my nerves. They make after the fact predictions, and that's it. You can't piggy back evolutionary theory for your predictions. Make your own, falsifiable theory. Until then, your god is not science.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64102 Dec 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>One day you will realize that trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory does not equal evidence for creation. That will be a momentous occasion. Pointing out one small, inconsequential thing and ignoring the plethora of evidence for evolution is dishonest and desperate. Why do you even care so much? Can't you still enjoy your god and your religion without frantically trying to disprove one of the most successful theories in modern science? It's akin to some idiot trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth because his holy book told him so. Oh wait, you guys already did that. Didn't work out too well.
Science hasn't always had super ideas either. It just seems history forgets those as time moves on. Nobody likes cocky science just like nobody likes cocky religion.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#64103 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
All great points that should end in "we think" no matter what you think you know you maybe able to remove most uncertainty but you will never know it all. In the quest for certainty only an idiot claims to know it all and has history has shown us even the "small stuff" can change I'm positive to I'm not sure.
KittenKoder has a great answer to you on comment #64050

Consider this: Archaeologists have been telling us for decades that they had worked out the sequence of hominids from monkey to human, and that sequence did not have room for a Adam and Eve scenario like in the Bible. Creationists just ignored the evidence.

Then the paleoanthropologists and archaeologists found evidence that modern humans (Homo-sapiens...us) were roaming the African savannas around 200,000 years ago. This apparently also leaves no room for the Adam and Eve story as the Bible relates. Creationists just ignored this news.

Now, most recently, DNA science has not only backed up the 200,000 year old date, but has also shown that we are connected by blood to earlier Hominids and that most humans alive today (except sub-Saharan Africans) carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood. I think this definitively kills the Adam and Eve story as related in the Bible.

So we pretty much can delete them from the truth column and demote them to just allegory.

This creates a REAL problem for Jesus (well actually a lot more stuff also) courtesy of Paul's meddling with what he thought was REAL history, but turned out to not be so.

You see as time goes on and scientists do their thing without regard to what happens to some perceived truth as they report their findings...things ARE changing. A lot of different sciences have converged to make Genesis and Exodus toast...except as allegory.

Now, whatever will we do about Jesus??
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#64104 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother talking anymore you appear to be hearing enough noise for the both of us. Not even your well credentialed creotards can answer questions like that with more thn likely, perhaps and maybe. That is why they like to play with models and invent speculative excuses that often contradict each other.
The only thing I can draw from this response is that you are yourself unsure how it works.

Hrm, I'll have to go find someone else who can explain how this isn't a contradiction in the hypothesis..........

I mean, because, if it is a contradiction, then obviously something isn't right, right?

Idek I'll let you know my results if I can find a creationist biologist to dumb this down for me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64105 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, we'll stick to one, the falsification of junk dna being the validation of a creationist prediction made before your recent findings.
Here is an evo biochemist quacker that refers to the IDers speaking to their creo prediction in a book.
"Sorry Michael, it is true. The genomes of many complex multicellular organisms have vast quantities of DNA that serves no purpose. It's junk. The whole argument of your book just collapsed, as did any argument for intelligent design."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/12/junk-...
Here he is again making a fool out of himself.
"I have consistently maintained that there's plenty of evidence for junk DNA and those scientists who dismiss the concept are wrong. In my review of The Myth of Junk DNA I specifically addressed the claims of the ENCODE project based on their 2007 pilot study"
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/encod...
I wonder what he'll have to say about the more recent research. Ignore it, I suppose.
John Sanford in 2005 Next, in chapeter 5 of Genetic Entropy debunks the junk-DNA and pseudo-gene myth and suggests that all dna will be found to be functional.
And best of all..from 1998
"Debating this physical anthropologist, Bob Enyart was just a Christian fundamentalist talk show host who spoke from his biblical worldview. Bob argued that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. After this 1998 debate, the next decade of explosive genetic discoveries overwhelmingly validated this creationist perspective, so much so that aside from coding for 20,500 proteins, it is estimated that the remainder of the genome has approximately four million other functional regulatory segments of DNA. So much for junk"
http://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-not-junk
Creationists have ALWAYS maintained that non coding dna will be found to be functional in time and that has been validated no matter how ignorant you are. We had to make that prediction because evolutionary non functional left overs were great evidence against creationism and good support for TOE. Now it's..Too bad for evos!
Don't you evos thrive on junk and evolutionary left overs? Doesn't evolution even need functionless left overs?
Why did TOE love functionless left overs before but now the opposite means zilch to them? Hmmm!
So I have dug up an example of a creationist speaking to creationists prediction that junk dna will eventually be found to be functional. Hence a creo prediction has been validated.
Now what have you as an evolutionist got to say about non coding dna? Oh let me guess. Nothing, it will be easier to be ignorant and struggle.
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.

TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.

The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.

So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#64106 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science hasn't always had super ideas either. It just seems history forgets those as time moves on. Nobody likes cocky science just like nobody likes cocky religion.
No, as time moves on, science self corrects. That is one of the reasons why science is such an effective tool for gaining knowledge - it allows for modification in light of new evidence. Now, scientists are humans too, and are therefore subject to human flaws, so sometimes they mess up just like everyone else - but that's why science itself has built in mechanisms for eliminating bias, confirming results, and changing in light of new data. A major difference between science and religion is that science starts from a hypothesis, checks to see if the observations support it, and then it comes to a conclusion; religion works the other way in that it starts from a conclusion (god did it) and looks for evidence to support it's preconceived notions.

That being said, it shouldn't matter. Science and religion are two different things. It's the fundamentalists who want to pretend that science and religion are diametrically opposed - when in reality they serve two different purposes. Science is a tool for learning about our universe, and religion (for those who want/need it) is a tool for gaining spiritual satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a competition, and there isn't one except in the minds of a few extremists. Religion, for some people, has it's place, but to act as if it can even come close to explaining our universe as well as science does is absurd.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64107 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing I can draw from this response is that you are yourself unsure how it works.
Hrm, I'll have to go find someone else who can explain how this isn't a contradiction in the hypothesis..........
I mean, because, if it is a contradiction, then obviously something isn't right, right?
Idek I'll let you know my results if I can find a creationist biologist to dumb this down for me.
When you learn to post appropriate replies instead of hot air I will engage with you. For now, your research says what it says and your algorithmic magic does not change that and neither does your diversions.

eg, limits to adaptation via negative epistasis and genome deterioration, creos ability to make predictions while evos are still wondering what went wrong!.

Sorry your evo babble did not lead me down the garden path into the land of evo confusion. I know better! You should too!

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64108 Dec 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, as time moves on, science self corrects. That is one of the reasons why science is such an effective tool for gaining knowledge - it allows for modification in light of new evidence. Now, scientists are humans too, and are therefore subject to human flaws, so sometimes they mess up just like everyone else - but that's why science itself has built in mechanisms for eliminating bias, confirming results, and changing in light of new data. A major difference between science and religion is that science starts from a hypothesis, checks to see if the observations support it, and then it comes to a conclusion; religion works the other way in that it starts from a conclusion (god did it) and looks for evidence to support it's preconceived notions.

That being said, it shouldn't matter. Science and religion are two different things. It's the fundamentalists who want to pretend that science and religion are diametrically opposed - when in reality they serve two different purposes. Science is a tool for learning about our universe, and religion (for those who want/need it) is a tool for gaining spiritual satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a competition, and there isn't one except in the minds of a few extremists. Religion, for some people, has it's place, but to act as if it can even come close to explaining our universe as well as science does is absurd.
I would argue science and religion are very close.
Science can recognize when it makes a mistake and changes.
Religion does the same this is proven by we no longer go on crusades to Jerusalem. We no longer own slaves. No more purification through pain (fire torture) we don't hunt witches. I think you get the point. Most modern Christians find these acts as they were done to be wicked.
So science and religion are growing and always changing.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#64109 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
When you learn to post appropriate replies instead of hot air I will engage with you. For now, your research says what it says and your algorithmic magic does not change that and neither does your diversions.
eg, limits to adaptation via negative epistasis and genome deterioration, creos ability to make predictions while evos are still wondering what went wrong!.
Sorry your evo babble did not lead me down the garden path into the land of evo confusion. I know better! You should too!
If you don't know you can just say you don't know, there's no need to get all uptight about it. Gosh. I will just go get an explanation from someone else that is familiar with the subject. It's not exactly third grade algebra, after all; I'm not expecting you to be an expert on creationist biology.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 14 min Spirit67_ 25,596
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 15 min Wolftracks 250
Things that fit in a matchbox (Oct '08) 16 min Spirit67_ 12,887
Al Sharpton is racist 17 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 17 min Kevin 25,677
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 18 min Spirit67_ 1,959
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 20 min Spirit67_ 215
HOW LONG can you hold YOUR SEMEN ? For men only. (Mar '12) 1 hr -Lea- 52
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 4 hr Roxie Darling 129
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 hr Roxie Darling 152,461
More from around the web