Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171978 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#94973 Jul 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Do the Jews really have their own calendar based on Adam? Or is it a fantasy calendar?
Yes.

Today, for example, is 27 Tamuz, 5773.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#94974 Jul 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>-
Behemoth was probably a hippo. It was definitely not an apatosaur.
Just because you can find a fossil creature that might fit a verse means nothing at all. There are thousands of creatures that are extinct. Odds are you could find one for every Bible verse that mentions an animal. You need to do a lot better than that.
The Messiah is called "behemoth" which is defined as a very strong person or animal. The key verses are 18 and 19. "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God; he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him". There was a reason why God allowed Job to suffer. The Messiah has also never broken a bone, Psalm 34:20.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#94975 Jul 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What "Word of God"?
Now if you mean the Bible it has changed. And to call the Bible the "word of God" is rather blasphemous. It is full of errors of all sorts including scientific error, geographic error, countless contradictions, bad morality, and failed prophesy.
Please separate the OT from the NT. The OT is the word of God and is infallible. The NT was inspired by Satan and is myth and delusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94976 Jul 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious but why do you think the great flood was in 1050? It supposedly happened sometime around 2345BC.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012...
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/flood.php
"Around" 2345BC.

hahhahahahahahhahhahahahaha

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#94977 Jul 5, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Please separate the OT from the NT. The OT is the word of God and is infallible. The NT was inspired by Satan and is myth and delusion.
Oh, shut up.

Delusion is entertaining only in small doses.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94978 Jul 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry SZ, you are waving off hundreds of mil/y of 'evolution' way too quickly. This one is a nightmare for specialists in these 2 eons. They break out in cold sweats in the night and through things at you when you bring this up in their office.
Once again, your fictional characterisation that there is anything in the actual fossil record giving anyone cold sweats. Its kinds precious, this phony view you have.
So you get to the bottom of the canyon and when you look and pound the rocks this is what you find.
1. Shell fossils
2. Undersea worms
3. Trilobites
4. Nautiloids
If these were overcome in a turbidity, this is the exact order they should be in.
Says you, and its very arbitrary. Any sorting due to a flood might produce a preponderance at each level. But we would of course, expect the odd mammal, bird, or dino fossil even here. They don't exist. Of course not! They had not evolved.
What you don't find is EVOLUTION. There is no sign of any transnational's, just successive types in order of their mobility.
Except, of course that even in trilobites there is a clear succession from early primitive types to the most advanced types more that 100 m years later. And as a whole in the fossil record, the "greater mobility" model fails humorously. Even your "reptiles sink" (unverified) claim does not rescue it.
Don't blame me if the most dramatic model of geology on the planet falsifies the Geo Column.
I don't even blame you for getting it so wrong. That would be your gullible reliance on extremely unreliable sources. I am sure that once you look into it with your honest eyes open, you will see how deluded you have been by the superficially plausible claptrap fundamentalist apologists have been spouting.
We should find hundreds of intermediates between shell and soft-shell, different successive developments of trilobites and the COMPLEX EYE, right? NONE EXIST, period.
And how do you propose that, considering that the soft shells versions won't fossilise well? Or even your assumption that a shell had to evolve extremely slowly? Or the usual "hundreds of intermediates" creationist strawman?(Yawn, yet another) Again, when the machinery for creating a shell emerged, why should it take long enough to creates "hundreds of intermediates" in the fossil record before a full shell was used?
The trilobite eye is an amazing marvel, these have been found to correct for underwater aberration, a very lucky chance development, don't you think,
No, I don't think. I think that once the basis of an eye developed, natural selection would quickly favour variants whose structure corrected for underwater aberration. Just as when later eyes hit the atmosphere, they would soon optimise to atmospheric aberration too.
yet found at the start of all?
Your proposed start being the Cambrian, a period of 70 million years. Talk about e x p l o s i o n.... And trilobites changing significantly over that period and in later ones.
And the nautiloids, amazing creature, swims, millions of them are fossilized complete for hundreds of square miles in and around the Canyon in a limestone deposit. Where are all the transitions in the column there? I have seen those deposits.

The truth is it takes the concept of evolution in the mind of the beholder to bridge the gaps
[QUOTE]

No, the truth is the original geologists lived in a Flood paradigm as you do, but long before Darwin they had found it necessary to abandon that paradigm based on the evidence before them.

[QUOTE]
It's clear that the Grand Canyon doesn't represent anything calm and placid, but is a testament of a catastrophe, contrary to what all your supposed 'peer review' experts with all their education tout. They are wrong.
I will go with the peer reviewed research over your personal intuition any day.
drinK The hivE

Anonymous Proxy

#94979 Jul 5, 2013
Its The Afro - Brazilian Pastor With The Balloon'- Hes Still Alive...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94980 Jul 5, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you did.
And you still don't have a real answer to the questions proposed.
I will commend you though, this is the shortest most direct response you have given. At least that is something.
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.

Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94981 Jul 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
Believing the theory of evolution is not a "liberal view".

Believing in creationism and Noah's Ark is a the same as believing in Santa Claus.

Does disproving Santa Clause debunk Christianity? The same can be said for the Creation and Flood myths.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94982 Jul 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
So you typed in a search term and got some hits. What does that mean in regard to your claims? I don't believe you knew what I was expecting when I posted about dinosaurs and the Bible, but if it makes you feel better run with that. I wasn't playing a game, I was looking to see if I got an expected response and you were willing to provide it.

What liberal views are those? Would they be the biblical scholars concluding that the animals described in those passages you posted are probably a hippo and a whale. So liberal is just what you use to refer to opposing view. Nicely mischaracterized. Fits with all your others.

You make a lot of outrageous points that aren't true or are backed with questionable evidence.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94983 Jul 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
You might be better served spending your time going over Chimney 1's or SZ's posts. They have done more damage to your position than anything I have posted.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94984 Jul 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, your fictional characterisation that there is anything in the actual fossil record giving anyone cold sweats. Its kinds precious, this phony view you have.
<quoted text>
Says you, and its very arbitrary. Any sorting due to a flood might produce a preponderance at each level. But we would of course, expect the odd mammal, bird, or dino fossil even here. They don't exist. Of course not! They had not evolved.
<quoted text>
Except, of course that even in trilobites there is a clear succession from early primitive types to the most advanced types more that 100 m years later. And as a whole in the fossil record, the "greater mobility" model fails humorously. Even your "reptiles sink" (unverified) claim does not rescue it.
<quoted text>
I don't even blame you for getting it so wrong. That would be your gullible reliance on extremely unreliable sources. I am sure that once you look into it with your honest eyes open, you will see how deluded you have been by the superficially plausible claptrap fundamentalist apologists have been spouting.
<quoted text>
And how do you propose that, considering that the soft shells versions won't fossilise well? Or even your assumption that a shell had to evolve extremely slowly? Or the usual "hundreds of intermediates" creationist strawman?(Yawn, yet another) Again, when the machinery for creating a shell emerged, why should it take long enough to creates "hundreds of intermediates" in the fossil record before a full shell was used?
<quoted text>
No, I don't think. I think that once the basis of an eye developed, natural selection would quickly favour variants whose structure corrected for underwater aberration. Just as when later eyes hit the atmosphere, they would soon optimise to atmospheric aberration too.
<quoted text>
Your proposed start being the Cambrian, a period of 70 million years. Talk about e x p l o s i o n.... And trilobites changing significantly over that period and in later ones.
<quoted text>
I will go with the peer reviewed research over your personal intuition any day.
Well Chimney1,

Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye

Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]

Emphasis "could"

The article continues;

"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".

"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.

It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.

To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.

The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.

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

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94985 Jul 5, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Chimney1,
Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye
Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]
Emphasis "could"
The article continues;
"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".
"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.
It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.
The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
Once again all you are doing is looking for areas that are little understood as yet by science and speculating. Well since you science guys don't know what is going on we consider that it was miracle. It coulda happened that way. No we don't have any legitimate evidence.

Appearing abruptly in the fossil record does not imply that it miraculously came into existence fully formed. You can click those ruby slippers together all you want Dorothy, but that will never make it true. It just means ancestoral forms have not yet been found, but evolution predicts that if they are out there they will be found.

It is only real in the sense that you are reaching real far and trying to bridge a gap in our understanding with mental deficient games.

Trilobites existed for over 250 million years. During that time there was continued evolution of their eyes. There are at least three different types of eye in trilobites that I am aware of that are used today in part to determine phylogeny and separate the higher taxa within the class. So, no the two statements do not contradict each other and your little sales pitch falls apart.

Are you saying that soft-bodied fossils have been found in strata that shouldn't be there. If the fossils and the strata containing them are there that seems to belie your whole point. In any regard, soft-bodied trilobites from Pre-Cambrian strata are being found that indicate that indeed did not spring fully formed into the Cambrian, but like all organisms, have followed evolution in their development.

By the way, evolution has nothing to do with whether, how and if an organism becomes fossilized.

Do you eat a lot of sugar?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#94986 Jul 5, 2013
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...

The soft tissue is fossil from Phosphatisation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94987 Jul 5, 2013
SBT, the evolution of the eye is well understood since there are creatures that still have different amounts of sight today. It is easily explainable and has been explained many times. In fact it is one of Dawkins specialties:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94988 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.

You then followed up with the claim that scientists were having "cold sweats" over empirical evidence when in fact they are perfectly comfortable with the empirical evidence. Asked to provide verified evidence of a single fossil appearing before its possible antecedents (a true falsification of evolution), you have provided nothing. You cannot, of course.

Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.

Very telling slip up though.

You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.

You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.

In short, you give it your best shot but merely show how superficial the arguments you buy into really are. The progenitors of those arguments are charlatans. I followed one right through to the end, the silly controversy over magnetic reversals, through the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot, and the continued lies even after their errors (was it Snelling? trying to remember the lying prick's name) were pointed out. But I bet its another one you bought into uncritically.

YEC is an utter crock. Its claims never stack up. End of story.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94989 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Chimney1,
Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye
Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]
Emphasis "could"
The article continues;
"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".
"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.
It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.
The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
OK, the earliest known trilobites had eyes. Great. It logically means that eyes had already evolved by then. Do we know exactly how and in which creatures? Obviously not. Does that mean they could not have evolved? Equally obviously not.

It would suggest that eyes evolved in soft bodied creatures that became trilobites later. Its also a reasonable supposition that fossil evidence from half a billion years ago will be rare. So far we have only a very few sites like the Burgess Shale, that merely provide snapshots.

You then add a new twist, the idea that fossils should continue to decompose over millions of years after forming. Never heard that one before, and see absolutely no basis for it if you have covered, undisturbed rock. The amount available will diminish over geological timescales, as more rock gets raised, subjected to erosion, etc. But lucky for us, some has survived.

More recently...say 230 million years ago, we now have a very full fossil record of the extraordinary series of transitions that led to the 3-boned middle ear in mammals. What that tells us quite simply is that the kinds of transitions you guys claim are impossible can be seen in this case clearly. Meaning, in principle, there is no issue with the evolution of the trilobite eye or any other example you want to trot out.

So accepting that large scale evolution is possible is not a faith based position, and little Johnny should keep asking questions. If the hunger for knowledge is what got Johnny's ancestors kicked out of the Garden of Eden, so be it. Good for us.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94990 Jul 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.
You then followed up with the claim that scientists were having "cold sweats" over empirical evidence when in fact they are perfectly comfortable with the empirical evidence. Asked to provide verified evidence of a single fossil appearing before its possible antecedents (a true falsification of evolution), you have provided nothing.
Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.
Very telling slip up though.
You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.
You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.
In short, the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot, and the continued lies even after their errors (was it Snelling? trying to remember the lying prick's name) were pointed out. But I bet its another one you bought into uncritically.
YEC is an utter crock. Its claims never stack up. End of story.
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove t from the textbooks.
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of the Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood deposits rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and the lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout in the GC, thats obvious. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel over short time periods, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94992 Jul 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.

Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.
Very telling slip up though.
You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.
You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.
In short, you give it your best shot but merely show how superficial the arguments you buy into really are. The progenitors of those arguments are charlatans. I followed one right through to the end, the silly controversy over magnetic reversals, through the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot,
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove from the textbooks

I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.

I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood sediments rather than evolution.

Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, showing no inter-layer erosion just like the Canyon.

This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and lab work agree.

Noah recorded the events and times in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.

Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.

My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.

Level 1

Since: Apr 07

TERRA AUSTRALIS

#94993 Jul 6, 2013
Creation VIA Evolution works for me.

If we dare to think "interdimensionally" ,

time

is

irrelevant!

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
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 2 min Trunketeer 10,191
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min Suezanne 167,269
Poll What is your favorite Sweetie-Pie profile? 5 min Sam 2
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min Jennifer Renee 12,734
Poll How to confront Sweetie Pie? 8 min Just Roxie 10
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 9 min Trunketeer 19,195
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 11 min Mustang GT Girl 6,079
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 18 min Trunketeer 183
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 30 min Trunketeer 9,347
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Wolftracks 42,116
More from around the web