Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173361 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82582 Mar 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>lol
They did proclaim, many times, that man should not slave for man. In 1 Cor 7:21-23, Paul said that a slave should seize the opportunity of freedom and stop being slaves of men.
Anybody can Google the bible, ya know?
Not quite:

"21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings."

This verse applies to Christians. It says if you are a slave and can obtain your freedom do so. It also says that Christians should not become slaves.

That is rather weak. Let's see what New Testament verses support slavery:

And I messed up, it was Paul that sent a slave back to his master, not Peter. He suggested that the master free the slave but he did not tell the owner that slavery was evil.

If anything the New Testament treated slavery as a necessary evil and early Christians saw slaves as a ready market for converts.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82583 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you are making the error of assuming that today's thinking is correct and is supported by the Bible. You keep making the same mistake. In the past the Bible was used to defend slavery. It is clear that neither Jesus nor any of his followers were anti-slavery, in fact St. Peter sent a slave back to his master.
Project much? It seems like you are now trying to copy what I have said about you as if it is your original thought.

OK, step away from the mirror and stop repeating what I say, you are confusing the intent.
Evolution Smasher

Pittsburg, OK

#82584 Mar 24, 2013
MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have incinerated the earth.

3. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for
fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
4. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:
1.how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
5. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
6. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering the worldwide flood it would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.
7. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The information included here is from www.Jesus-is-Savior.com

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82585 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have incinerated the earth.
3. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for
fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
4. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:
1.how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
5. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
6. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering the worldwide flood it would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.
7. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The information included here is from www.Jesus-is-Savior.com
another sock puppet with a new moniker...yawn...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82586 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>you are a loon. Urban did no such thing. He trialed Galileo for heresy because Galileo insulted the church but refrained from any harsh punishments on him. Galileo, if any other person, would have been executed and instead he was simply put under house arrest. The church didn't even rebuke his expansion of Copernicus' heliocentrism- just banned Galileo's works on it due to his direct insults (and no, it wasn't his work that insulted the church, it was Galileo making direct statements about them). The Church unbanned his work after others had recreated it and it was well established..
Re: Church trying to kill off science, say hello to Giordano Bruno

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_bruno

Giordano Bruno (Italian pronunciation:[d&#658;or &#712;dano &#712;bruno]; 1548 – February 17, 1600),(Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus) born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.[2] After the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy, he was burned at the stake.[3]

GIllette again: Why would it be "heresy" to say the earth revolved around the sun? What Canon was negated (in the church's mind) by this astronomical opinion?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82587 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Project much? It seems like you are now trying to copy what I have said about you as if it is your original thought.
OK, step away from the mirror and stop repeating what I say, you are confusing the intent.
LOL, I have pointed out several times that if anyone is projecting it is you and now like a child you try to return that charge.

Poor fool. Trying to sound reasonable while being unreasonable does not work.

Why don't you tell me that the Hebrew did not have a word for ball, I mean sphere again.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82588 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>What in the hell are you talking about? I never said it could be changed willy nilly, I said there is no controlling authority. Many of the articles are little more the reprints of other articles created specifically to get points and bias across.
Wikipedia is not an authority, it is a starting place for reference.
And in my Post #561 on the previous page, I gave you BOTH the overview and the the detailed references that showed that the Jewish worldview at that time was of a flat disc earth with a dome over it.

You have yet to rebut this.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82589 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have incinerated the earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.h...

Creationist Claim CD701:

The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate indicating that the earth must be young.

Response:

1. The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).

2. Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

3. T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgoo...

Thompson, Tim, 1997. On creation science and the alleged decay of the earth's magnetic field. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.htm...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82590 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
3. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for
fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_1...

Creationist Claim CC361.1:

Oil and coal can form rapidly. Their formation is more a matter of heat and pressure than of time. Millions of years are not necessary to account for them.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 109-110.
Response:

Coal deposits show evidence of a history. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in flood plains. They often contain stream channels, roots, and soil horizons. Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found.
Links:

MacRae, Andrew, 1994. Could coal deposits be explained by a global flood? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/co...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82591 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

>>>>In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82592 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And FFS they had the term. You simply don't like the term.
And yet you have failed to provide the word. You seem to be stuck on a toy that you think could have been used but wasn't.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time, what is the geometric name for the shape of a ball?
If they thought the word was spherical but could not say it they could have always said that the Earth was round like a ball.
They could have done a number of things, but because they did not do something how you wanted them to does not in any way mean anything you say it does. This is not third grade recess and your sub Nancy Drew level of logic does not fit reality.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny none of them state that and all verses apply better to a flat earth than to a spherical Earth.
This is only true if you approach the subject insisting the earth it flat. You see, if you take that away, then it easily become a sphere with the same terminology. In science, they call this confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is something you have went through great trouble to achieve these past couple days.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have heard of Galileo retard. I was specifically asking which canon Urban based his attack on Galileo on.
Evidently you do not know much about Galileo, Urban VIII did not attack Galileo on the grounds of his heliocentrism but on grounds of personal attacks against the church in which Galileo made statements about the leadership of the church. As for Galileo's continuation of Copernicus' works, the church only said that the theory couldn't be proven or disproved and ordered him to not teach it as fact. Galileo continued to discuss it as theoretical mathematics until he insulted the leadership of the church and was forced into house arrest.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, we have a real Kool-Aid drinker here.Though the interaction between Galileo and the church was complex they did base their judgement against Galileo oh his works on helio-centrism.
So not only can you not keep your Bible straight you cannot keep your history straight either.
Is everything you believe to be true only supported in your head? I mean this is documented crap we are talking about here. There is no reason for you to pretend to know something then present it completely wrongly. Galileo had no problem with his heliocentric models outside the lack of scientific support for them until he made derogatory comments about the leadership of the church. That is like you claiming the world is round, cussing out a cop and then claiming your subsequent arrest was for the claim of the world being round. No, it was because of you cussing out the cop. But don't take my word for it, open a freaking history book that isn't a cliff notes version.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Would you accept a physics books with a disclaimer that said "Gravity is only a theory"?
I certainly would. Gravity is one of the most least understood products of nature. We have several theories on why and how it works but no clear answer outside of anecdotal Newtonian understandings.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you purposefully misread my post. I did include the disclaimer "near perfect". You obviously do consider it near perfect and therefore your whole last post is void.
You may not be a Bible thumper. But you are very dishonest.
Because you are a fool and I do not agree with the foolishness you spout does not make me dishonest. It makes you incorrect, ignorant, and searching for a way to save your fictitious worldview.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82593 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
5. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.h...

Creationist Claim CE310:

The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.

Response:

1. This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless.(In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

2. There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

Links:

Johansson, Sverker, 1998. The solar FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.htm...

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgoo...

Van Till, Howard J., 1986. The legend of the shrinking sun -- A case study comparing professional science and "creation science" in action. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38(3): 164-174. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosm...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82594 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
7. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The information included here is from www.Jesus-is-Savior.com
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.h...

Creationist Claim CE011:

Earth's rotation is slowing down, so it cannot be more than a few million years old.

Response:

1. The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

2. The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

3. Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? A close look at Dr. Hovind's list of young-earth arguments and other claims. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgoo...
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82595 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: Church trying to kill off science, say hello to Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_bruno
Giordano Bruno (Italian pronunciation:[d&#658;or &#712;dano &#712;bruno]; 1548 – February 17, 1600),(Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus) born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.[2] After the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy, he was burned at the stake.[3]
GIllette again: Why would it be "heresy" to say the earth revolved around the sun? What Canon was negated (in the church's mind) by this astronomical opinion?
Read the entire story. All Bruno did was make Galileo recant his work as not yet provable, it wasn't until Galileo insulted the leadership of the church that he was trialed for heresy.

If you put your mind to it and read up on the subject, you might be able to understand the entire picture instead of the bits and pieces people have told you.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82596 Mar 24, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
I was being facetious about the absurdity of this whole argument. There is no god. Carry on.
well, you do not know that and there is no scientific way for you to prove it.

You can say there is no scientific evidence to support a god, but not there there is no god. You are suffering the same mental process believers have.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82597 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I have pointed out several times that if anyone is projecting it is you and now like a child you try to return that charge.
Poor fool. Trying to sound reasonable while being unreasonable does not work.
Why don't you tell me that the Hebrew did not have a word for ball, I mean sphere again.
Ball is not sphere. Nowhere in the bible is ball used for sphere. the term and concept as a shape did not exist and was not in use at the time the stories were created. You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82598 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
And in my Post #561 on the previous page, I gave you BOTH the overview and the the detailed references that showed that the Jewish worldview at that time was of a flat disc earth with a dome over it.
You have yet to rebut this.
NO, I addressed it. I said wikipedia is not an authority and isn't a valid reference. the excerpts you list date to as early as 1953 in reference which is in line with my statement that the bible teaching a flat earth is a concept brought about recently by people attempting to find fault in it.

While some people might have considered the earth to be flat at some time, you can only abstract it from the bible if you read flat into it. The people of the time of the bible knew the world was not flat.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82599 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Read the entire story. All Bruno did was make Galileo recant his work as not yet provable, it wasn't until Galileo insulted the leadership of the church that he was trialed for heresy.
If you put your mind to it and read up on the subject, you might be able to understand the entire picture instead of the bits and pieces people have told you.
READ the post.

Giordano Bruno is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE CASE from Galileo's. Bruno was the VICTIM of you Christians.

Your Church tortured and killed him for his astronomical ideas.
Mark

United States

#82600 Mar 24, 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!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...

See the contact zone and think about what the rocks are trying to tell you folks. This is all over the earth.
Mark

United States

#82601 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, sadly there are quite a few facts of life that you have been left out of.
I have no idea what you mean by the "Great Unconformity". I can tell you one thing, it is not a geological term.
I will be happy to deal with the facts of geology. I have seen your posts and never have I seen a worse case of "have no clue"itis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...

So because the pics are pretty good I used Wiki. All over the earth my friend. Every poster on this site needs to be honest with themselves and think about what this means. I do this because I care about every one of you. Now you have seen it, a sermon in the rocks.

M

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
News List limits booze sales for Illinois city's hab... 4 min Maggie Gallaghers... 3
Poll Is Sweetie-Pie really Ozzie? 5 min Sweetie-Pie 3
News Josh Duggar reportedly paid porn star for sex 6 min Maggie Gallaghers... 1
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 min Bureau of Hurt Fe... 43,373
got any jokes (Sep '08) 8 min Ricky F 124
Poll How many SOCKS do you have? 20 min Sweetie-Pie 6
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 41 min Mr_FX 24,543
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 50 min Wolftracks 169,176
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 18,629
More from around the web