Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 3,002)

Showing posts 60,021 - 60,040 of111,637
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64118
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care about your waffle around what is turned on and off. It has function. So non functional genomic material demonstrated an evolutionary path and now functional non coding dna also demonstrates an evolutionary path. That is twoddle. You can't get any deep ancestries right and you reckon you can get these ghost ervs into some order.
Admit that I have demonstrated that creos claimed there to be no junk dna many years before it was found to have function and have been validated.
Admit that some evos have shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution and now should suck eggs.
Admit that evos would rather hang themselves than admit to being wrong about anything.
No, no no, guys can't waffle, that blue waffle is an affliction that only you girls can get and we wish you would take your blue one elsewhere.

One more time, we can show that ancient genes are still in an animal. It has been tested and found true in the laboratory. You can deny as much as you want, but it is an accomplished fact.

So it does not matter if you call those ancient genes junk DNA or not. It is a losing point for your side on the junk DNA question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64119
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.
ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.
I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.
So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.
The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.
I am supposed to believe the "expertise" of Maz and her blue waffle? I don't think so. ERV's are recognized as viruses by experts in the field virologists. Until you can find something serious, that means peer reviewed, I will stick with the experts. And of course there are many peer reviewed papers on ERV's would you like to see some, or will you take me at my word?

Since: Sep 12

Grand Prairie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64120
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.

1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.

2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.

3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.

4. Definitely not the case. See above.

5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.

6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.
Not maz but I did find this talking about junk DNA http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-05...
I hope it helps.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64121
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no no, guys can't waffle, that blue waffle is an affliction that only you girls can get and we wish you would take your blue one elsewhere.
One more time, we can show that ancient genes are still in an animal. It has been tested and found true in the laboratory. You can deny as much as you want, but it is an accomplished fact.
So it does not matter if you call those ancient genes junk DNA or not. It is a losing point for your side on the junk DNA question.
No you can't show any such thing. Prove it, and let's see what misrepresentation ensues. Junk dna is not a losing point because no dna demonsrates to a chimp or anything else.

You have lost the point on junk dna because I can provide evidence that creos were claiming there would be no junk and their claim and prediction has been validated, regardless of any dribble you want to hand wave around or hubris you offer. My point 1 is supported and unless you are now suggesting evos never mentioned junk dna you need to suck it up!

You are trying to impose your own point in place of mine. You gobbled that creos did not make claims or predictions round junk dna in advance and were WRONG.

Now you want to polywaffle on about ervs.....

How the retroviral env gene has these effects is not clear. But what is more curious is this: the retrovirus is closely related to a free-living virus called Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus, which causes lung cancer in sheep and goats, but not other species. That is not surprising in itself, but it means that the virus must have become endogenous fairly recently, otherwise it would not look so similar to its free-living counterpart. However, circumstantial evidence suggests that rodents (in the form of mice) and primates (in the form of both monkeys and humans) have also acquired endogenous retroviruses that help placenta formation, and have done so independently of what happened in sheep. Clearly, this retroviral gene fills an important niche in mammalian biology, but, on the other hand, mammals were able to reproduce perfectly well before they were first infected. That, too, is weird. Nevertheless, without the retrovirus's presence now, you might not have been born.

http://www.economist.com/node/7905388...

So on what basis do you suggest this reasoning above demonstrates ancestry? And please provide more than your opinion so I have the opportunity to bag out your links as well.

All the way back to monkeys an erv, that resulted from an infection and likely a usual drop in fitness, supposedly endogenized and continued to evolve and mutate and leave a remnant of a tiny sequence that evos suggest is supposed to show ancestry but was once thought to be a dead remnant? Rubbish!

I suggest that all these assertions are evolutionary hubris and in actual fact these areas of the genome bear little resemblance to human, chimps or other primates and straw grabbing is your evidence for ancestry or even that ervs are the result of HGT of a virus.

That this tiny remnant of sequence could be worked up to demonstrate anything is a work of magic in itself.

Now, with evidence, support your claims, please. Let's see this algorithmic magic of yours.

Another supposed infection also resulted in providing the same function independently. Rubbish!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64122
Dec 9, 2012
 
Maz, you ignorant twit. You do not get to debunk your claims with articles that oppose you. I never said that ERV's never have a function.
And you still have not provided any evidence of creationists making predictions of DNA all being used before "junk DNA" was discovered.
And lastly there have been cases where ancient genes were reactivated in the laboratory. It has been done and several times over.
You have lost on all of your points and made none of them.
So are you going to keep blue waffling up this site? Probably.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64123
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not maz but I did find this talking about junk DNA http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-05...
I hope it helps.
Oh Subby likes to hide in ignorance. Creos did indeed claim many years ago that there would be no junk dna and that is being validated. I just love to watch evos struggle and squirm.

Evos have shown that their irrefuteable evidences are no more than flavours of the month.

Thanks for the link. It is a rehash of the one I posted but may have more info, so thanks again.

From your link...

"Most of a person’s genetic risk for common diseases such as diabetes, asthma and hardening of the arteries appears to lie in the shadowy part of the human genome once disparaged as “junk DNA.”

Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA seems to be involved in maintaining individuals’ well being — a view radically at odds with what biologists have thought for the past three decades.

Those are among the key insights of a nine-year project to study the 97 percent of the human genome that’s not, strictly speaking, made up of genes."

So the majority of the genome is used in maintaining ones well being and is NOT evolutionary junk as evos proposed for over a decade. That reminds me of our knuckle walking ancestry that they had evidence on for over 150 years. Evolutionary theory is just one big surprize after another for evos!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64124
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy to look at some else's life or into some story and say what you would have done. However it is much more difficult to look at our own lives sometimes and not just see our problems but also to find the solution.
Nice job! The fundie two step strikes again! You avoided dealing with the subject and said that your god could not make laws that transcends time!

There is no way that a god would worry about female virginity, so much so that it would have the female murdered for not being one. Only a man, who believes that women are property would worry about female virginity.

Only man would have slaves and think that it was OK.

Only man would think that killing a slave would be OK.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64125
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.
1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.
2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.
3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.
4. Definitely not the case. See above.
5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.
6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.
1. I should not need to provide any more you ignorant evotard. Are you suggesting that creos did not make claims around junk dna? Moron. When did you last support anything you say with anything let alone peer reviewed research..the big evo quack....

2. Waffle and crap.

3. waffle and crap. Ask your creotard researchers what junk is. They invented the term. You evotards don't even understand your own terms now. Ha Ha.

And the rest are crap also with nothing more than the simplistic replies of a child.

Don't forget it is evo researchers that have found 80% functionality and are expecting to find 100%. Would you like to wager what is left of your credibility on that?

All I have to do is demonstate that creos made claims around junk dna and I have pegged them back to 1998. I do not have to produce peer reviewed research evotard because most intelligent evos already know that creos preached that.

I have produced evidence to support creos made these claims well in advance, and you would have to be a desperate moron to suggest otherwise as your sole defence.

Creos did not toddle off and come up with convolutions as to why God would make junk dna and role model evolutionary knee jerk science. Creos denied the existence of junk dna from its inception. If they did us eknee jerk science you would be able to find the same kind of prattle from creos as I can find from evos loudmouthing their hubris, ad nauseum.

You are a proud empty prat, trying to justify your existence on a debating forum.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64126
Dec 9, 2012
 
The problem with titles like "Junk DNA debunked" is that evolutionists never put great stock in the idea of junk DNA. It is a term similar to the proper use of UFO. There are millions of UFO's spotted daily. For example"

#1 "What is that?"

#2 "I don't know."

At this point in time the object is a UFO.

#1 "Oh, it's a Boeing 747."

And now it isn't. The same applies to Junk DNA.. When first found it was unknown what much of the DNA "code" did. It looked like it sat there and did nothing. Now they are finding some uses of it. Some control the body in ways that were not seen before. Some parts of it are old genes that are no longer used. They are not "junk" since they are now recognized, but they are still old and still debunk creatard nonsense.

And of course Maz is still ducking the question of ERV's. Now if the original part of much of DNA being total junk persisted the creationists would have no explanation for it. This along with all of the other countless examples of evidence that creatards have not been able to answer to would be a very large nail in the coffin of their idea that has been dead for 150 years. For some strange reason Maz takes great hope in the discovery that some of the junk may not be junk after all.

I know. Maz will keep blue waffling this site with her bullshit. This discovery does not hurt evolution in any way. If Maz could understand a lick of logic she would see why that was the case. And the case that it does not kill creationism dead is still far from being made.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64127
Dec 9, 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.
Ah, the god of the gaps argument. Brilliant.

No one in science has ever claimed to know it all! But believers claim that their unseen god knows it all. What does that make them?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64128
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you lost on that. Sorry Maz, you will have to find some other topic to rant about.
I can't possibly have lost because I can back what I claim and so far we are still waiting for yout osay somethjing intelligent.

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...

Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome's components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Everything I said above I have not only supported but also validated.

You have presented twoddle.

That generally means..I win.

It is a point you can't refute subby. Just like knucklewalking ancestry you will have to suck it up and admit these evos did not know what they were talking about, whilst creo claims over a decade old were validated.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64129
Dec 9, 2012
 
Maz, try to bring up one point. Make it the strongest point. Your Gish Gallops are obvious lies.

So how does this "new" discovery help cretinism or IDiocy in any way?

I will repeat that they did not find the whole genome to be functioning yet. Only that much more of it is functioning that was thought in the past. Some of those functions are old functions that hurt creationism. Dinosaur teeth, scales, tales, and claws in a chicken hurt creationism, they do not help it and those are some of the finds of what used to be "junk DNA". Do you need articles on how they found those? I will be happy to supply them.

Second, none of your cited scientific articles support your side in the least. You have only gone to them for their title or at most their abstracts. None of them put a limit on evolution. The people who wrote them did not think there was a limit on evolution.

Lastly you have failed to produce the articles that you claim exist. You have failed to show how creationists predicted a totally useful DNA before "Junk DNA" was discovered. Nor have you shown any articles that predict that all DNA would be found to have a use by creationists even after this latest discovery. Probably because they are aware of the old genes that have been found that already debunk creationism.

So that is at least three strikes and you are out.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64130
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't possibly have lost because I can back what I claim and so far we are still waiting for yout osay somethjing intelligent.
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...
Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome's components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...
Everything I said above I have not only supported but also validated.
You have presented twoddle.
That generally means..I win.
It is a point you can't refute subby. Just like knucklewalking ancestry you will have to suck it up and admit these evos did not know what they were talking about, whilst creo claims over a decade old were validated.
No, you keep forgetting that ancient genes, like the ones I have mentioned several times did not count as "junk" once identified. You and yours still have no answer for them. More of the code may be used than we thought but still much of it is tied up in ancient genes, which are not junk DNA, ERV's, again identified so not junk DNA. Yes, some ERV's have been found to have a use. It looks like the majority won't and yet they are still not junk DNA since they are identified. Just as a Cessna would not be a UFO once identified.

So until you have answers for those you still lose the DNA battle.

Since: Sep 12

Grand Prairie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64131
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>Nice job! The fundie two step strikes again! You avoided dealing with the subject and said that your god could not make laws that transcends time!

There is no way that a god would worry about female virginity, so much so that it would have the female murdered for not being one. Only a man, who believes that women are property would worry about female virginity.

Only man would have slaves and think that it was OK.

Only man would think that killing a slave would be OK.
I don't think it's ok to own a slave much less kill one. My wife is not my property and anyone who says different can argue with her about it.
As for the mind of God besides what's in the bible I can't tell you I can honestly say I don't want to know what's on Gods mind.

Since: Sep 12

Grand Prairie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64132
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, the god of the gaps argument. Brilliant.

No one in science has ever claimed to know it all! But believers claim that their unseen god knows it all. What does that make them?
1st off I just had this talk with kitten go read her post it was better than yours.
2nd when believers say God knows it all it makes them FAITHFUL.
Before you spend the next couple of weeks trying to make me doubt God the other evos and atheists have been at it for 3 weeks and they had way better arguments than you do.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64133
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's ok to own a slave much less kill one. My wife is not my property and anyone who says different can argue with her about it.
As for the mind of God besides what's in the bible I can't tell you I can honestly say I don't want to know what's on Gods mind.
Here is the point. You are picking and choosing what parts of your Bible to believe on what feels good rather than on evidence. In the O.T. it was okay own a slave. Not only was it okay to own a slave, it was alright to beat a slave. You could beat a slave within an inch of its life and as long as it did not die in the next day or two you were alright. In fact the slave could die a week after the beating and that was not a crime. You could get out of a rape charge by paying the father, not the women, but the father of a women that you raped and marrying her. I am sure women would just love that. There is all sorts of immoral nonsense in the O.T. that you reject and yet you ignore science and believe what is obviously a fairy tale in the first book of the Bible.

Now there is some good philosophy in the N.T.. A lot of it makes sense. And if it helps you that is fine. But you can pretty much throw the O.T. away. There is an amazing amount of extremely immoral behavior and nonsense in it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64134
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, try to bring up one point. Make it the strongest point. Your Gish Gallops are obvious lies.
So how does this "new" discovery help cretinism or IDiocy in any way?
I will repeat that they did not find the whole genome to be functioning yet. Only that much more of it is functioning that was thought in the past. Some of those functions are old functions that hurt creationism. Dinosaur teeth, scales, tales, and claws in a chicken hurt creationism, they do not help it and those are some of the finds of what used to be "junk DNA". Do you need articles on how they found those? I will be happy to supply them.
Second, none of your cited scientific articles support your side in the least. You have only gone to them for their title or at most their abstracts. None of them put a limit on evolution. The people who wrote them did not think there was a limit on evolution.
Lastly you have failed to produce the articles that you claim exist. You have failed to show how creationists predicted a totally useful DNA before "Junk DNA" was discovered. Nor have you shown any articles that predict that all DNA would be found to have a use by creationists even after this latest discovery. Probably because they are aware of the old genes that have been found that already debunk creationism.
So that is at least three strikes and you are out.
Oh so now you are quibbling over 20%, despite your own researchers saying that likely 100% will be found to be functional. Is that your desperate strategy now? You fool and desperate waste of space.

I'd say I have the upper hand whilst you grab hold of a straws.

I have not failed to show how creos predicted at all because I posted reference to a debate a creo had with an evo about junk not being junk. Your are really stupid and desperate. You lot actually had evidence of junk dna that was no more than farting in the wind.

So are you saying that when the last 20% is found to have function you will shut the frig up and stop your stupidity. I doubt it!

I'd say jumping from 98% junk to 80% functional is validation in motion. Note, I am sticking with my prediction and not knee jerk explaining why God would even have 20% junk in the genome.

Is this 20% proof of evolution?

What about you evos? Too bad you can't say the same thing. Knee jerkers!

You have not refuted this..

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...

Everything above is true and suffiently supported, and you have desperation and bravado to offer to save face on this forum.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64135
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's ok to own a slave much less kill one. My wife is not my property and anyone who says different can argue with her about it.
As for the mind of God besides what's in the bible I can't tell you I can honestly say I don't want to know what's on Gods mind.
But your god said that it was ok and that your wife is your property. I am certainly not defending your myth, just telling you what most preachers will not.

My son would often start a conversation with, "Do you want to know something..." and I always reply with, "I want to know everything!"

I guess that is the major difference between a believer and a non-believer; the non-believer is driven to ask questions. That is why believers say, "Don't question god!" Why not? Is he afraid of my questions?

Teachers who did not know the material, also hate questions, but a person well versed, welcomes questions.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64136
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
1st off I just had this talk with kitten go read her post it was better than yours.
2nd when believers say God knows it all it makes them FAITHFUL.
Before you spend the next couple of weeks trying to make me doubt God the other evos and atheists have been at it for 3 weeks and they had way better arguments than you do.
I never claimed to be a good writer! I certainly would never put myself on the same level of knowledge as many of the others on here. They are very well educated. I have not spoken with a christian who was well educated on evolution or the bible.

My arguments are simple.
Would a supreme being worry about only the human females virginity? Would a supreme being allow owning and murdering a slave?
Would a supreme being require a rape victim to marry her rapist?

Three very simple questions and the obvious answer is, no.

If jesus is god and a god cannot die, why do christians claim that he died for their sins?

Very simple logic. Not much of an IQ is needed to answer these very simple questions.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64137
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Interesting. In my observation, it's more like religion drags it's
heals a lot longer than science does, and only changes it's practice,
kicking and screaming when the difference between an evolving
understanding of reality, as well as an evolving culture, becomes too
incredibly awkward.

Of course modern science hasn't been around that long, so it's harder to take the long view. The modern science framework, of cherishing
the competition of ideas, seems pretty foreign to how religion works,
and allows the much faster rate of change that we see in science.

In a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed, I notice that
religion changes mainly by the splitting away of new factions, while the older faction keeps it's beliefs constant, but may diminish in
numbers of adherents. Of course at the same time there are
individuals who drift away from religious cliques into a rainbow of
private interpretations, or even just ignore the whole thing.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,021 - 60,040 of111,637
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

144 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Word Association (Jun '10) 13 min _Word Woman_ 25,795
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 16 min tora tora tora 34,740
What are you wearing today? (Nov '09) 16 min _Word Woman_ 11,624
What is the meaning of life? 18 min Sublime1 21
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 21 min liam cul8r 6,450
True False Game (Jun '11) 24 min _Word Woman_ 9,514
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 29 min liam cul8r 23,682
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Petal Power 140,327
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Petal Power 14,110
How to become Unbannable 3 hr Chilli J 61
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••