Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163764 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64844 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell it to the dark age, barbaric, illiterate masses of the UNeducated, narrow/close minded hate and vengence filled, twisted and distorted anarchial sectors--because The MANY PEACE lovers of the world ALREADY realize that!!
Maybe you could start in AFRICA, or LIBYA.
You are coming off incoherent and a bit crazy here bud. You might want to set down and chill for awhile

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64845 Dec 12, 2012
Jesus Diablo wrote:
Let's be practical for a moment. Our education system attempts to prepare individuals for the real world. To get jobs, to be good citizens, to be contributors. A college education takes it one-step farther and tries to make one think, analyze, and draw valid conclusions.
So, if creationism is correct, then how come you'd end up with an "F" in your high school/college science/history/geography/geol ogy/etc. classes? Remember, the folks who established our education system and continue to run it, are, for the most part, religious.
Thus, in terms of practicality, creationism is worthless.
"What about spiritually! Spiritually it is not!!" Yeah, right; as if God is on the side of individuals like you.
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.

All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.

TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.

TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.

If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64846 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....
<snip>
This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.
I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.
I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.
Nowhere do they say that the change was instantaneous. So it seems your problem is that you continually misinterpret the articles that you read. We cannot help that.

And you still have therefore not answered my question about ERV's. Do you want to have see some articles about ancestral genes? You seem to have been ducking and hiding whenever that topic arises.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64847 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.
All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.
TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.
TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.
If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.
So Maz...

In the PERFECT educational system of Mazland, what would your alternative to the Theory of Evolution be, and how would you teach it?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64848 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a FREE Speech WORLD, here in Americ- dud(e)
You could "show" your spew until eternity-gues what-it doesn't matter one IOTA to me. What part of "I have my OWN beliefs" (as well as other My OWN type of interactions etc) do you NOT comprehend?
YOU don't like THAT--TOO BAD. DON'T post anyting directly to me.
And I will post to whom ever I WANT to...because I!! DO NOT have a problem w/RATIONAL, SANE, decent, MORALLY Ethical atheists--UNLIKE YOU-who seems to have a problem with anyone that disclaims athiesm!!
GET OVER IT ALREADY-it's NOT going to change-the world is NOT made for or to suit just YOUR agenda OR beliefs--and THAT is REALITY.
Now YOU can DEAL with THAT.
You're coming off a little incoherent and crazy here bud, you might want to chill out some.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64849 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....
One particularly remarkable incidence of functionality with regards these sequences is the involvement of the highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (the syncytins) which are known to be crucially involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion. These proteins are absolutely critical for placental development in humans and mice. The different kinds of Syncytin protein are called "syncytin-A" and "syncytin-B" (found in mice); "syncytin-1" and "syncytin-2" (found in humans). But here's the remarkable thing: Although serving exactly the same function, syncytin-A and syncytin-B are not related to syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. Syncytin protein also plays the same function in rabbits (syncytin-ory1). But rabbit syncytin is not related to either the mouse or the human form. These ERVs are not even on the same chromosome. Syncytin-1 is on chromosome 7; syncytin-2 is on chromosome 6; syncytin-A is on chromosome 5; and syncytin-B is on chromosome 14.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/725.abstrac...
This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.
I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.
I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.
Come on you evos with big attitudes and not much more....

Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?

This is the sort of nonssense you lot believe. Why? Is it because you are sheep that follow without understanding, or are you geese that just like to quack for the heck of it.

I have given my answer, now you lot egocentrics tell me your own, or can't you, or are you too embarassed to.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64850 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
We have already been all over arch with Subby.
Feathers were found on TRex and are not solely an avian trait. Feathers sprouting on arch, with no dino connection, would be intermediate, however they are not.
The beak is not a beak at all and is shared amongst many different species.
That is on top of having perfectly modern bird footprints dated to 212mya whilst arch did not have a reversed hallux.
And Yes, there have been forgeries, indeed, but not all are thought to be forgeries at this time. Maybe the forgers got better at it.
It is obvious that all the so called 'bird' traits arch had are now dino traits and not exclusively aves. The reversed hallux, was around before arch so evos can struggle as much as they like but their explanation of the footprints is an unknown and undiscovered mythical theropod because evos can't have modern birds flapping around 212mya. IOW you have invented a myth as a handwave.
Flappy, you don't understand what avian traits are. If a bird has a trait that by definition is an avian trait. It does not matter if it shares that trait with other animals. You have a spinal chord, that is a mammalian trait, it is also a reptile, amphibian, bird, and fish trait. And your so called "perfectly formed" bird feet have never been called that. They have always been called "bird like".

And of course you have continued to ignore the fact that Archy had hollow bones, even though I linked several articles that stated that fact.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64851 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere do they say that the change was instantaneous. So it seems your problem is that you continually misinterpret the articles that you read. We cannot help that.
And you still have therefore not answered my question about ERV's. Do you want to have see some articles about ancestral genes? You seem to have been ducking and hiding whenever that topic arises.
In case you did not pick it up, I am saying these are NOT ancestral genes and I am presenting an argument as to why they are not, one point at a time starting here.

The reason they are not ancestral is because evos can't tell the difference between an ancestral or independently acquired ervs and they basically handwave away inconsistency with a plethora of terminology.

Now answer the question, how do they tell the differrence?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64852 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Flappy, you don't understand what avian traits are. If a bird has a trait that by definition is an avian trait. It does not matter if it shares that trait with other animals. You have a spinal chord, that is a mammalian trait, it is also a reptile, amphibian, bird, and fish trait. And your so called "perfectly formed" bird feet have never been called that. They have always been called "bird like".
And of course you have continued to ignore the fact that Archy had hollow bones, even though I linked several articles that stated that fact.
You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.

Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64853 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even know what you are talking about do you? My question is the start of the argument I am presenting but you are too silly to see it.
You are too uneducated to even see any argument Subby. We get 4000 words in a post, not the space to write a book. It is going to be one point at a time, just like our discussion on junk dna.
Your prediction that data will continue to align is not a scientific prediction. Does TOE predict functionality, no functionality, it doesn't matter because anything will be shown to support TOE. IOW TOE has little to NO predictive ability. TOE is not a science.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
The answer is your own philosophical asumptions of common ancestry. The ervs that do not align are automatically determined to be inserted after separation and the ones that pop up where they shouldn't be is hand waved away as a matter of convergent evolution.
The problem with believing we share a common ancestor with a chimp can also be an issue of time. It is one thing to have millions of different base pairs separating chimps and humans, but if we both came from a common ancestor, that means our differences would have been caused by mutations in our genetic material after we split away from our ancestors.
The problem: Per evolutionary models humans and chimps split off about 300,000 generations ago. In order to account for the vast amount of genetic differences between us, we would have to have had experienced about 133 genetic mutations in each generation. That many mutations in such a short amount of time is absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.
"Haldane's Dilemma" is a creationist falsehood. It is a result of creationists mischaracterizing how evolution occurs. Yes, those limited, number "mutations per generation" could be a problem, if there were only two individuals involved per generation. Luckily for us populations evolve and not individuals. In other words in a population of one million there would only have to be roughly one positive mutation per ten thousandth of a generation. Considering that there are over 100 mutations per generation Haldane's limit is clearly not a limit at all.

And your failure to see how the TOE can and does make predictions is not the theories fault, that is clearly your fault. How do you think that they found Tiktaalik? It was done using the predictive power of the TOE along with a knowledge of geology. Other people who have specialties in other areas could surely show how once again you are wrong in their fields.

Lastly, just because you can write up to 4,000 characters does not mean you need to. Most points can be made in a much shorter space.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64854 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.
All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.
TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.
TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.
If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.
Thus, you admit by implication that creationism is impractical. And since creationism and TOE are diametrically opposed, then TOE must be practical.

And that which is practical is useful. So creationism is useless.

And that which is useless can be discarded.

See? That's the scientific method. Pretty cool, huh?(It has always been and it will always be easy to put you folks back under the rock from which you crawled.)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64855 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's fine, so long as it's not twisted into that garbage of DENYING or belittling OTHER peoples CONSTITUTIONAL rights to worship (or not) how they please (so long as it's NOT hurting anyone else in any shape, fashion or form).
BECAUSE...not everyone likes PEAS, and that's just REALITY.
Oh absolutely, I agree. It's a pity that it's creationists that are the ones who are attempting to do just that by promoting their religious beliefs in public school science classes, and have been attempting to do so for nearly a hundred years. But then they don't care that what they're doing is illegal, un-Constitutional, and unscientific.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64856 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are also WRONG about a lot of what is written in the Bible--because parts of it ARE in FACT, glimpses of things that DID happen-like it or NOT.
I say to you that many stories in the Bible are just mythical tales...they never happened in real life. You try to prove me wrong.
The earth is 4.5+- billion years old.
Adam and Eve never existed.
Noah's world-wide flood never happened.
The 'Tower of Babel' never happened.
The Exodus never happened.
Joshua's conquest of Jericho and other cities never happened.
Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible (Pentateuch).

All of the above are provable...and they put a real dent into the believability of Christianity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64857 Dec 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Quotes from the article:
"In trying to explain how life came to exist, people have been fixated on a problem of chemistry, that bringing life into being is like baking a cake, that we have ingredients and instructions to follow said co author Paul Davies a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona state university.That approach is failing to capture the esscence of what life is about."
A terrible commentary about the church of the puddle gooists
or this comment:
Part of the problem is that there isn't really a good definition of what life is?"
Sara Walker co author and astrobiologist at Arizona state.
So my dear puddle people
It seems that life isn't about just organizing chemicals, there's something science can't grasp about, and like a monkey fumbling with a combination lock the faithful keep claiming, give us more time,give us more time, and we'll solve it.Yeah right!
I see. So because we don't know everything yet then that makes your personal incredulity a valid argument therefore it was all done by an invisible magic Jew?

And if you were living in Newton's age you would also be laughing at gravitationalists at ever thinking they could POSSIBLY predict the correct orbit of Mercury since even Newton's so-called "law" of gravity couldn't do it.

Guess what we can do now?

You laugh at scientists for being monkeys fumbling around in the dark. Yet that fumbling has given you all your modern benefits that you enjoy every day. And yet still you laugh. While you sit there on your fat lazy azz.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64858 Dec 12, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then you should start behaving as one who understands the bible.
How do you know I don't?

Answer - you don't. Period.

Sorry if you don't like that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64859 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
I was making a point. That science supports the notion that there could be alien life on other planets.
Yes it does. And I've always agreed.
Cybele wrote:
Here is a more recent article:
http://news.discovery.com/space/has-evidence-...

[QUOTE who="Cybele"]I never mentioned anything about grey lizards.
Me neither. But you have claimed Earth was seeded by aliens "designing" life, whereas if these links you were presenting me with were supportive of any kind of "alien" theory it would be more like non-directed panspermia.

Oh, and if you read your own links further they showed just a wee bit more skepticism than you did. Or have you been taking lessons of the creationists and decided to claim links that don't support you really do even when they really don't?
Cybele wrote:
No thanks to 'real science.' I don't deny the evidence of fossil records. But I am not naive to the fact that fossils have been forged to show evidence for missing links such as the Archaeopteryx or the piltdown man. I'm sure there's more.
Actually yes, you are EXTREEEEEEEEMELY naive. UTTERLY naive. TOTALLY naive. COMPLETELY naive. EXTREMELY UTTERLY TOTALLY and COMPLETELY naive.

Why?

Because you've bought into a few soundbites from a bunch of ignorant superstitious reality-denying hicks who believe that all science is wrong because it was all magically poofed into existence by an invisible Jewish wizard 6,000 years ago.

Like I said - archaeoraptor (the faked Chinese fossil you were referring to) was discovered to be a fake because dinosaur experts (evolutionary scientists) spotted the forgery, using science you reject. Piltdown Man is another example of a forgery which was exposed by experts using evolutionary science you reject. But creationists still mention it because they require the ad-hom of linking a forgery to evolution because they can't deal with scientific reality. Archaeopteryx on the other hand is NOT a fake. We have at least ten of them. A fine example of a transitional fossil, so much so that creationists will say absolutely anything to avoid accepting the fact it's a transitional - they've called it fake, just a dino and just a bird. Anything but exactly what it is - an organism with both dino *and* bird features, EXACTLY as predicted by evolution. They even go as far as calling it a "mosaic", which is really just a crappy way of saying it's a transitional but they just don't have the guts to admit it.

So let's put it politely, science is NOT your strong suit.

At all.
Cybele wrote:
I don't reject real science. I said evolution is a THEORY just like the Big Bang.
And in case you haven't noticed, both those theories are accepted by the scientific community. The reason being they both make valid predictions based on observable phenomena. The Big Bang for example predicted background radiation to an accuracy of 3 parts per million IIRC.

Creationists only offer magic as an alternative. You offer ZIP as an alternative. Except for the claim that abiogenesis was due to aliens popping by in a flying saucer.

Which has zero evidence.

So uh, yeah, you ARE a science denier. You don't know very much about science and are just one of the millions of throngs of people who think that complete ignorance of a subject is a PERFECT place from which to critique science.

This is why no-one takes you seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64860 Dec 12, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Achaeopteryx is a FAKE? Really? Which one of the TEN specimins found is fake?(hint....Archy is evidence of a REAL organism).
Despite Cybele's claim of being able to understand science due to their science "education", it's possible that he/she didn't know the difference between archaeoraptor and archaeopteryx.

Either that or some dumb creo on the internet claimed archaeopteryx was a fake and they bought it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64861 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You don't even know what you are talking about do you? My question is the start of the argument I am presenting but you are too silly to see it.
You are too uneducated to even see any argument Subby. We get 4000 words in a post, not the space to write a book. It is going to be one point at a time, just like our discussion on junk dna.
Your prediction that data will continue to align is not a scientific prediction. Does TOE predict functionality, no functionality, it doesn't matter because anything will be shown to support TOE. IOW TOE has little to NO predictive ability. TOE is not a science.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
The answer is your own philosophical asumptions of common ancestry. The ervs that do not align are automatically determined to be inserted after separation and the ones that pop up where they shouldn't be is hand waved away as a matter of convergent evolution.
The problem with believing we share a common ancestor with a chimp can also be an issue of time. It is one thing to have millions of different base pairs separating chimps and humans, but if we both came from a common ancestor, that means our differences would have been caused by mutations in our genetic material after we split away from our ancestors.
Hey Maz, since all this has been dealt with already where's this warm up you were talking about?(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
The problem: Per evolutionary models humans and chimps split off about 300,000 generations ago. In order to account for the vast amount of genetic differences between us, we would have to have had experienced about 133 genetic mutations in each generation.
Which is not a problem. We already know all humans are born with around 125 to 175 mutations. Even creationists agree with this. In fact if I recall you even put the number as high as 300, which is possible, but that's very likely higher than average. And as you recall (or not) I already demonstrated that based on the normal average mutation rates puts common ancestry between humans and chimps approximately 6-7MYA, which ties in with the fossil record.
MazHere wrote:
That many mutations in such a short amount of time is absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.
Oh, that old thing. You mean that thing where Haldane himself admitted that Haldane's Dilemma was in fact actually *only* Haldane's dilemma?

Do you notice that (once again) you've moved the goalposts onto another further subject without addressing your previous mistakes which have already destroyed your own arguments?

You're a runner who started on a false start and you're still running and claiming to be ahead of everyone else. Sorry Maz.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64862 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...
But it's a bird! It's got feathers, wishbone, hollow bones, bird-like skeleton and feet, and can fly!

Oh and um, Cy, the linky you linked to sez you're full of shite.

So never mind science, READING isn't really your strong suit either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64863 Dec 12, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
We have already been all over arch with Subby.
Feathers were found on TRex and are not solely an avian trait.
Uh, yes. We know.(shrug) That is the entire POINT.

The dino-bird connection was proposed long before we started finding feathers on dinosaurs.

In other words, evolution made a successful prediction that you're unable to address and you're ignoring it.
MazHere wrote:
Feathers sprouting on arch, with no dino connection, would be intermediate, however they are not.
The beak is not a beak at all and is shared amongst many different species.
That is on top of having perfectly modern bird footprints dated to 212mya whilst arch did not have a reversed hallux.
Sub's been over this with you a dozen times. All you can do is repeat your fallacy without directly addressing him. Now go find us a modern bird before basal dinos then maybe we have a problem. Yes, we DO have "modern" bird-like feet going back millions of years ago. Do we have modern birds going back that far? I'd sure like to see a modern day robin, eagle or vulture back in those days, wouldn't you?

Answer - yes you suuuuuure would!
MazHere wrote:
And Yes, there have been forgeries, indeed, but not all are thought to be forgeries at this time. Maybe the forgers got better at it.
Ah, so you're covering your bases, eh? In other words you can't decide yourself whether it's real, fake, bird, dino, whatever. Pick one and stick to it.

But you can't. That's why if some little tidbit of info is found later which you inevitably find theologically inconvenient you can then just scream "FAKE!"
MazHere wrote:
It is obvious that all the so called 'bird' traits arch had are now dino traits and not exclusively aves. The reversed hallux, was around before arch so evos can struggle as much as they like but their explanation of the footprints is an unknown and undiscovered mythical theropod because evos can't have modern birds flapping around 212mya. IOW you have invented a myth as a handwave.
Since birds are classed as theropods which have been around for 230MY, it's not really a problem, no.

And after months and months and months of dishonest hypocritical behavior from you Maz, you've still yet to address the NUMEROUS flaws of your own posts. Why is that I wonder?

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
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 3 min NotaGoth 2,335
News A head scratcher: 9 brains found next to train ... 5 min Parden Pard 1
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 8 min mr goodwrench 8,373
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 9 min NotaGoth 140,436
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 19 min Wolftracks 40,671
News See What Gym Class Was Like 50 Years Ago 30 min Doctor Jiang Wu 23
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 34 min Hoosier Hillbilly 8,290
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 36 min Bartek 162,794
*Sad music/sad themes Thread* 48 min Crazy Beautiful 151
Poll Middle East Solutions 1 hr dragoon70056 21
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 hr Jennifer Renee 11,382
More from around the web