Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201353 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.

anonymous

Barberton, OH

#82436 Mar 23, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No point for argument.
Is child bearing or reproduction a form of creation?
Give me your evidence how the universe came into form?
Actually, you ask a provocative question here but it really does not have bearing on creation.

Women often evoke child bearing as an act of creation. It is a process that is completely out of the control of their cognitive understanding....but they often play on the mysticism of the process to claim that their part is more than to spread their legs and take the thrust.

Charles, are you doing something similar?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82437 Mar 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Source, please.
In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1


Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome)
"Age" (in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
----------
Figure 2. Potassium-argon "ages" for "whole rock" and mineral concentrate samples from lava dome at Mount St. Helens.
What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82438 Mar 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Source, please.
Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):


Historic Lava Flow
Potassium-Argon "age"
(in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09
0.25 ± 0.15
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3

However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82439 Mar 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Source, please.
In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1


Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome)
"Age" (in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
----------
Figure 2. Potassium-argon "ages" for "whole rock" and mineral concentrate samples from lava dome at Mount St. Helens.
What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.

Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):

Historic Lava Flow
Potassium-Argon "age"
(in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09
0.25 ± 0.15

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82440 Mar 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Source, please.
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3

However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)

Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably.(The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. promote the faith of radioisotope dating.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82441 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1
Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome)
"Age" (in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
----------
Figure 2. Potassium-argon "ages" for "whole rock" and mineral concentrate samples from lava dome at Mount St. Helens.
What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.
people who do not know how to use tools shouldn't use them...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82442 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably.(The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. promote the faith of radioisotope dating.
those volcanos at the grand canyon happened millions and millions of years ago...

why do you have to lie for your cult?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82443 Mar 23, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Lol
you have education and yet your ideas put together as a whole, are nothing .
Your so called vast ideas will one day end underneath the earth.
Our knowledge as humans is limited. Just understand your dishonesty.
Okay, so you think that intelligence and education is bad.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82445 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot fail number one. No, balls are spheres. You made the idiot claim that they did not have a word for sphere and I showed how completely idiotic that was.
Yes, we know what geometric shape balls can be but not always are. Or are you trying to say that a football is a sphere? Either way, you was simply wrong in expecting the bible or anyone else to say the earth is a ball when what was used makes more literary sense. You are simply wrong in claiming all balls are spheres or that because someone did not use a third word to describe a sphere that they did not mean what is equivalent to a sphere. It takes a real moron to insist as you do, that because something more resembled what was real but was a toy, the fact that it wasn't used to describe something not a toy means whatever you imagine it to mean. Grow up.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot fail number two.
No, I have seen an article by someone who new the language of that time. As I said, it was too late and I did not have the time to look for that article then. Somethings on the internet can be hard to find. I am not a creatard and do not need to lie. You cannot find a legitimate article that will back up your claim that there was no word for sphere.
And you still have not shown why the word ball is not an acceptable word.
No you did not. In the article you linked to, the author refers to concordances which you until you recently found out what they actually were, completely dismissed. What you have is a blinded idiot that you found through confirmation bias in your search for answers that fit your needed worldview. Nothing more.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot fail number three.
And it is a lulu. A specially shaped ball that did not appear until the 19th century is going to disprove that balls are not sphere?
Please, I have seen three year old children that can lie better than that.
Yet it is still a ball and you are attempting to claim that all balls are spherical therefor not comparing the earth to a ball means they had no clue to it's shape even though a word meaning circular was used. You are the one who is failing logic here.

Does your desire to be right in your mind outweigh your ability to be correct in real life?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot fail number four.
No, I am pointing out that the language used could be applied to either a spherical or flat Earth whenever they talk about the Earth. But from context the description describes a flat circular Earth and not a spherical one. For example when the sky is said to be "draped over the Earth like a tent" that applies only to a flat Earth and not a round one. And that in several places the geometry they use could only apply to a flat Earth. At least twice it describes seeing all of the Earth from a high place. I know you failed geometry but you should still be familiar with the concept of a horizon. On a round flat Earth you could see all of the Earth from a high place. From the top of Mt. Everest you will see less than 1% of the Earth's surface. The Earth is BIG.
I seriously hope your parents live a long time and you are not forced out of their basement any time soon. You wouldn't last a year on your own with your mental capacity. You see, the books in the bible are not one story written from start to finish, they are collections of stories and texts created and written over time and need to be compared with that in mind. It is completely insane for you to insist that two supernatural beings are somehow restricted to natural physics or to use that irrational thought to dictate how other books have to be interpreted in order to save your worldview.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82447 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No story in the Bible takes place on a ship. One takes place on an "Ark" but we know that is a myth and does not really count. A few on boats yes, not none on ships. The simple shepherds and fisherman did not have ships. The boats that they used were not ones that would leave the shore far enough behind so that sailing over the horizon was a common thing.
I do not think you have the slightest clue to what you are talking about. Ever heard of Jonah and the Wale? Of course you know of Noah, what about David's people in psalms who took to the sea in ships? Lets not forget the Syracusia, Isis, Thalamegos, and Hatshepsut- all ships by even today's standards.

Where you fail is that it only takes 6 miles to drop past the curvature of the earth and not be seen. This is possible in all of the seas without ever needing to go into the ocean. 7 of the chapters in the bible mention ships. You are simply a fool.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82448 Mar 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So, the deity couldn't make himself clear, and has to rely on a bunch of rank amateurs of dubious motive to translate? Over and over?
Perhaps that whole idea of the Tower of Babel wasn't so smart after all.
Whatever have I said that would make you think that? The people and the times were understood completely by whom it was intended for. It hasn't been until we expanded language and changed it through free will and enterprising thought that concordances have become necessary. If language had not varied and we all spoke and understood the language of the times in this day, we would all have a complete sound knowledge of the scripture. But then we wouldn't have what we do today either because the expansion of language is one of the key things that allowed us to become more precise and deliberate in our acts insomuch that we would progress as a society.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82449 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, we know what geometric shape balls can be but not always are. Or are you trying to say that a football is a sphere? Either way, you was simply wrong in expecting the bible or anyone else to say the earth is a ball when what was used makes more literary sense. You are simply wrong in claiming all balls are spheres or that because someone did not use a third word to describe a sphere that they did not mean what is equivalent to a sphere. It takes a real moron to insist as you do, that because something more resembled what was real but was a toy, the fact that it wasn't used to describe something not a toy means whatever you imagine it to mean. Grow up.

Subduction Zone wrote, "<quoted text>
Idiot fail number two.
No, I have seen an article by someone who new the language of that time. As I said, it was too late and I did not have the time to look for that article then. Somethings on the internet can be hard to find. I am not a creatard and do not need to lie. You cannot find a legitimate article that will back up your claim that there was no word for sphere.
And you still have not shown why the word ball is not an acceptable word."

No you did not. In the article you linked to, the author refers to concordances which you until you recently found out what they actually were, completely dismissed. What you have is a blinded idiot that you found through confirmation bias in your search for answers that fit your needed worldview. Nothing more.

Subduction Zone wrote, "<quoted text>
Idiot fail number three.
And it is a lulu. A specially shaped ball that did not appear until the 19th century is going to disprove that balls are not sphere?
Please, I have seen three year old children that can lie better than that."

Yet it is still a ball and you are attempting to claim that all balls are spherical therefor not comparing the earth to a ball means they had no clue to it's shape even though a word meaning circular was used. You are the one who is failing logic here.

Does your desire to be right in your mind outweigh your ability to be correct in real life?

Subduction Zone wrote, "<quoted text>
Idiot fail number four.
No, I am pointing out that the language used could be applied to either a spherical or flat Earth whenever they talk about the Earth. But from context the description describes a flat circular Earth and not a spherical one. For example when the sky is said to be "draped over the Earth like a tent" that applies only to a flat Earth and not a round one. And that in several places the geometry they use could only apply to a flat Earth. At least twice it describes seeing all of the Earth from a high place. I know you failed geometry but you should still be familiar with the concept of a horizon. On a round flat Earth you could see all of the Earth from a high place. From the top of Mt. Everest you will see less than 1% of the Earth's surface. The Earth is BIG.
"

I seriously hope your parents live a long time and you are not forced out of their basement any time soon. You wouldn't last a year on your own with your mental capacity. You see, the books in the bible are not one story written from start to finish, they are collections of stories and texts created and written over time and need to be compared with that in mind. It is completely insane for you to insist that two supernatural beings are somehow restricted to natural physics or to use that irrational thought to dictate how other books have to be interpreted in order to save your worldview.
Very nicely put. I commend you on a well stated post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82450 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I do not think you have the slightest clue to what you are talking about. Ever heard of Jonah and the Wale? Of course you know of Noah, what about David's people in psalms who took to the sea in ships? Lets not forget the Syracusia, Isis, Thalamegos, and Hatshepsut- all ships by even today's standards.
Where you fail is that it only takes 6 miles to drop past the curvature of the earth and not be seen. This is possible in all of the seas without ever needing to go into the ocean. 7 of the chapters in the bible mention ships. You are simply a fool.
What of it? It was simply another myth.

There were no whalers at the time.

Why can't these fools recognize a make believe story when they see one?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82451 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, we know what geometric shape balls can be but not always are. Or are you trying to say that a football is a sphere? Either way, you was simply wrong in expecting the bible or anyone else to say the earth is a ball when what was used makes more literary sense. You are simply wrong in claiming all balls are spheres or that because someone did not use a third word to describe a sphere that they did not mean what is equivalent to a sphere. It takes a real moron to insist as you do, that because something more resembled what was real but was a toy, the fact that it wasn't used to describe something not a toy means whatever you imagine it to mean. Grow up.
<quoted text>No you did not. In the article you linked to, the author refers to concordances which you until you recently found out what they actually were, completely dismissed. What you have is a blinded idiot that you found through confirmation bias in your search for answers that fit your needed worldview. Nothing more.
<quoted text>Yet it is still a ball and you are attempting to claim that all balls are spherical therefor not comparing the earth to a ball means they had no clue to it's shape even though a word meaning circular was used. You are the one who is failing logic here.
Does your desire to be right in your mind outweigh your ability to be correct in real life?
<quoted text>I seriously hope your parents live a long time and you are not forced out of their basement any time soon. You wouldn't last a year on your own with your mental capacity. You see, the books in the bible are not one story written from start to finish, they are collections of stories and texts created and written over time and need to be compared with that in mind. It is completely insane for you to insist that two supernatural beings are somehow restricted to natural physics or to use that irrational thought to dictate how other books have to be interpreted in order to save your worldview.
Balls are almost always spherical. I challenge you to find a nonspherical ball that was made before the year 1 AD.

And it is hilarious when a retard who believes fantasies lectures me about living in my parents basement.

Seriously if you believe the nonsense in he Bible why don't you believe that the Lord of the Rings or other fantasy stories are true.

You could not debunk one of my claims so you tried to insult me.

That didn't work either.

Back to the drawing board creatard.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82452 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Very nicely put. I commend you on a well stated post.
That is only because, sadly, you are even denser than he is.

Too bad you have the brain capacity of a squirrel.

Hey Langy, Look!! An acorn!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82453 Mar 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so you think that intelligence and education is bad.
all cults think intelligence and education are bad. knowledge is the death knell of cults...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82454 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only because, sadly, you are even denser than he is.
Too bad you have the brain capacity of a squirrel.
Hey Langy, Look!! An acorn!
What's the name of the prehistoric squirrel in the Ice Age movies?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82455 Mar 23, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutjob nonsense.
Where is FossilBob when we need him? LOL
FossilBob is a professional geologist and teacher of geology at U of Indiana who recently retired. He has been spending much less time here on Topix, but his mission here on Topix was to expose and teach and embarrass YEC Christians who make silly claims like this.
Perhaps we can find him and direct him here.
Your inane "Biblical" nonsense won't play in conversation with a REAL geologist!
He's a bit busy with other stuff at the moment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82456 Mar 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What's the name of the prehistoric squirrel in the Ice Age movies?
Scrat, Google is your friend.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82457 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably.(The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. promote the faith of radioisotope dating.
" Creationism.org "? Really?

And Steve Austin? The ONLY people who use him as a source are his fellow creationist nutters.

I meant a real source.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min Sharlene45 194,332
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 26 min wichita-rick 18,429
What Could Be Hot? (May '15) 27 min scars that wont heal 784
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 29 min wichita-rick 3,511
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 32 min ImFree2Choose 44,365
Single riders at carnivals/county fairs have ZE... 1 hr County fair man 4
News Man shoots himself in the face in a weird attem... 1 hr wichita-rick 17
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 2 hr andet1987 178
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr grace-fallen 32,681
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 4 hr Uncle Enzo 8,540
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 5 hr Go Blue Forever 7,826
More from around the web