Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221214 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#117504 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Moronic response. English is a mishmash like every other languages, but it did not started in those places but in England.
The English language, as spoken in most parts of England today started in England.

"English" in America, Australia, Canada and other parts of the world are NOT the same as in England, and could be categorized as "American English", "Australian English", etc.

The English language has therefore *EVOLVED* from the parent language of the mother language ("ENGLISH English") into their present state in those countries.

There are parts within AMERICA where different dialects are spoken that representatives of these areas would have difficulties understanding other dialects. FURTHER "evolution" of the language.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117505 Jul 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
messianic114 wrote:
At some point a structural change has to occur. This requires a change in the genetic code.
And you were born with 125 to 175 mutations. That's a change in your genome. The same happened with your parents and their parents, and the same will happen with your offspring and their offspring. These changes accumulate. So unless the lineage falls to extinction, evolution is inevitable.
.
We have yet to see a mutation that creates a new structure, ie an eye where there wasn't one before.
.
Mutations are an error in duplication, where do we see a mutation favourable to the organism?
.
For evolution to occur, both these questions have to be true, mutations must occur that are favourable, and eventually a new structure must be formed. Mutations are pointing us in the opposite direction, from better to worse. Unless you can show that favourable mutations are taking place (which are able to be passed on to the next generation) then how is it possible for evolution to occur under that mechanism? In the event you can show a favourable mutation (which could happen but not be a cause of evolution) you would also need to show at what rate these changes occur and be able to predict that for such and such to happen would take X generations. Using a mathematical model we could then test to see if in fact there is enough time to explain the diversity and complexity of life as we know it.
.
I also find a problem with the accumulation of mutations as the answer as sooner or later a mutation (sooner I think) will occur that is fatal to the organism. In which case all the accumulated mutations in that individual would not be passed on to the next generation. Additionally since most (I would even argue all) mutations are deficiencies, I would think that this would lead to unfavourable conditions to pass along genetic data.
.
<quoted text>
So nylonase not good enough for ya?
.
Was any bacteria tested to see if the ability to consume nylon wasn't already present within the gene pool? If so where is the evidence of the test? Was the test sufficient to eliminate all possibility that the ability wasn't already present? This would only seem good science to me.
.
In the case of the lizards, again is any testing done to see if the original population doesn't already have the genetic material to develop the valves if necessity dictates? I suspect not, because no evidence was given that this was the case. The fact that evolution could occur in 36 years is another indicator that the analysis is flawed as it flies in the face of evolutionary theory.
.
<quoted text>
Your analogy fails because machines are not self-replicating biological lifeforms.
.
It is possible to create a machine that could be self-replicating. Lets say that over time the computer code used to self replicate was loaded into memory over and over each time or hundreds of times an error occurred to which mutations in the parts started to occur. Does anyone believe that this would end up with rotors instead of drum brakes and that an entire system would develop to stop the car?
.
An analogy is just that an an analogy, one can criticize any analogy. You still have to explain how a system, such as an eye can occur by random means when by you own admission 99.999% of mutations are detrimental. While one mutation (which I don't think will happen) is forming a new system another one of the many genes needed to make the system work could be mutating to a detrimental position and the chances of getting them all to line up is statistically what?
.
<quoted text>
Then tell me why orthology of human and chimp genomes are consistent with mutation rates, genetic drift and nested hierarchies, just as evolution predicted.
.
I would like to see the numbers predicted on mutation rates and what evolution predicted specifically,
otherwise they could be shooting an arrow into the woods and then painting the bulleye around the arrow.
.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117506 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
How can you have evolution without a change from one kind to another, somewhere along the line a major change has to occur. As I pointed out in the disc brake analogy, you can't develop a rotor without a caliper without disaster.
.
Secondly to say that is a lie, you would need to prove that evolution can occur without a change from one kind to another.
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
messianic114 wrote:
Do we have any evidence that change happens so gradually that no new kind is ever formed. We don't see this in the fossil record.
First of all, "kind" is bullshite. It's a meaningless and far too generic term. What we DO see is new species.

Of course I already showed it to you.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
We see new forms suddenly appearing.(Cambrian explosion).
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
messianic114 wrote:
Additionally the woeful lack of transitional forms (I will say none) also points to change from one kind to another, not a gradual change so imperceptive as to negate a new kind.
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line. There's plenty more if you're interested - all predicted by evolution, and fall in line with nested hierarchies as expected.

But that's the key, isn't it? You're not interested in the evidence so you claim it doesn't exist. Simple fact of the matter is you're wrong.

And you're wrong because you're a liar. Feel free to actually address our previous posts which provided you with evidence you STILL haven't refuted. Until then your objections are worth diddly.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117507 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
You still have to explain how a system, such as an eye can occur by random means when by you own admission 99.999% of mutations are detrimental.
Where do you get this stuff from??? The vast majority of mutations are NEUTRAL not detrimental. Geez!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117508 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
How can you have evolution without a change from one kind to another, somewhere along the line a major change has to occur. As I pointed out in the disc brake analogy, you can't develop a rotor without a caliper without disaster.
.
Secondly to say that is a lie, you would need to prove that evolution can occur without a change from one kind to another. Do we have any evidence that change happens so gradually that no new kind is ever formed. We don't see this in the fossil record. We see new forms suddenly appearing.(Cambrian explosion). Additionally the woeful lack of transitional forms (I will say none) also points to change from one kind to another, not a gradual change so imperceptive as to negate a new kind.
First you have to define "kind". What tests would you do to tell if two different groups were of the same "kind" or not? Creationist definitions of "kind" tend to fail. They do not have a working definition. If you can't make a working definition of kind it becomes a nonsense term and is of no value in a debate.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#117510 Jul 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am in complete agreement with you on Niven. Didn't know he was involved with DC or Green Lantern.
http://www.graspingforthewind. com/2011/06/26/larry-niven-and -the-history-of-green-lantern/

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117511 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to define "kind". What tests would you do to tell if two different groups were of the same "kind" or not? Creationist definitions of "kind" tend to fail. They do not have a working definition. If you can't make a working definition of kind it becomes a nonsense term and is of no value in a debate.
A bat is not the same kind of bird as a pigeon. How is that not a clear definition?
Biggie

Indianapolis, IN

#117512 Jul 10, 2014
Never really gave all of this much thought until I was in Burgos, Spain a few months ago. Toured the museum of human evolution. Human remains, 850,000 years old along and hand tools are hard to deny.

The idea that a supreme being planted those items and created a mature earth in order to confuse and divide is ludicrous.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117513 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
We have yet to see a mutation that creates a new structure, ie an eye where there wasn't one before.
Actually mutations creating new structures have been known by geneticists for DECADES:

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...

Of course you were already given nylonase, cecal valves, and now SETMAR. Want another? Syncytin 1.
messianic114 wrote:
Mutations are an error in duplication,
One has to be careful how the term "error" is used here. A genome with zero "errors" is a clone. Since we're not clones, that means each generation changes slightly. Ergo evolution is inevitable.
messianic114 wrote:
where do we see a mutation favourable to the organism?
Why ask questions when you have already been given answers?

When a mutation occurs there are three possibilities: it's beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Most are neutral.
messianic114 wrote:
For evolution to occur, both these questions have to be true
Bub, you DON'T KNOW what needs to be true. If you knew anything about the subject you would have never asked us for cats giving birth to dogs in the first place.
messianic114 wrote:
mutations must occur that are favourable, and eventually a new structure must be formed.
Done. Now we wait for you to ignore it again.
messianic114 wrote:
Mutations are pointing us in the opposite direction, from better to worse.
If that were true, humanity (and in fact pretty much all life in general) would be in SERIOUS trouble. Genetic entropy would soon reach a point where life would no longer be viable and we would see a drastic reduction in ALL populations across the board PURELY from this cause.

So why are our populations actually INCREASING? And how come life has continued on this planet for over 3 BILLION YEARS?

I'll tell you - you were repeating a fallacious creationist argument against reality which was refuted by the scientific literature before it was even made.
messianic114 wrote:
Unless you can show that favourable mutations are taking place (which are able to be passed on to the next generation) then how is it possible for evolution to occur under that mechanism?
Evolution is not goal-directed, and therefore does NOT require a constant stream of beneficial mutations. They could all be neutral, as long as they change the lineage over time. This is observable both in the fossil record and genetics.
messianic114 wrote:
In the event you can show a favourable mutation (which could happen but not be a cause of evolution) you would also need to show at what rate these changes occur and be able to predict that for such and such to happen would take X generations. Using a mathematical model we could then test to see if in fact there is enough time to explain the diversity and complexity of life as we know it.
I did. Twice.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

That makes 3.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117514 Jul 10, 2014
continued:
messianic114 wrote:
I also find a problem with the accumulation of mutations as the answer as sooner or later a mutation (sooner I think) will occur that is fatal to the organism. In which case all the accumulated mutations in that individual would not be passed on to the next generation. Additionally since most (I would even argue all) mutations are deficiencies, I would think that this would lead to unfavourable conditions to pass along genetic data.[/QUTOE]

Your opinion is baseless. Your ignorance is not a valid argument. Of course fatal mutations occur, so it may come as no surprise to you that 99% of everything that's ever lived is extinct. Nobody said evolution was efficient. However just as long as SOMETHING survives, evolution can still occur. And it does. Natural selection weeds out the harmful mutations by killing off those populations, leaving those with beneficial mutations to flourish, and will therefore, quite obviously, have a higher reproduction rate than those who inherit detrimental mutations.

[QUOTE who="messianic114"]W as any bacteria tested to see if the ability to consume nylon wasn't already present within the gene pool? If so where is the evidence of the test? Was the test sufficient to eliminate all possibility that the ability wasn't already present? This would only seem good science to me.
Funny, I was wondering where you had the evidence of the ability to digest compounds before they even existed.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
In the case of the lizards, again is any testing done to see if the original population doesn't already have the genetic material to develop the valves if necessity dictates? I suspect not, because no evidence was given that this was the case. The fact that evolution could occur in 36 years is another indicator that the analysis is flawed as it flies in the face of evolutionary theory.
If they had the genetic material then they would have developed the organs. If you dispute this then you can demonstrate that the original population had the genetics responsible and explain what caused them to conveniently suddenly appear in a new environment enabling them to digest a different food source.
messianic114 wrote:
It is possible to create a machine that could be self-replicating. Lets say that over time the computer code used to self replicate was loaded into memory over and over each time or hundreds of times an error occurred to which mutations in the parts started to occur. Does anyone believe that this would end up with rotors instead of drum brakes and that an entire system would develop to stop the car?
Or let's say you're attempting to refute reality with a fantasy situation of your own devising which does not accurately represent biological evolution.
messianic114 wrote:
An analogy is just that an an analogy, one can criticize any analogy. You still have to explain how a system, such as an eye can occur by random means
No I don't. Evolution is not random.
messianic114 wrote:
when by you own admission 99.999% of mutations are detrimental.
You're lying (again). This is your claim, not ours.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117515 Jul 10, 2014
continued (again)
messianic114 wrote:
While one mutation (which I don't think will happen) is forming a new system another one of the many genes needed to make the system work could be mutating to a detrimental position and the chances of getting them all to line up is statistically what?
Of course you're again arguing against a caricature of evolution where all functions must be in place simultaneously, while not taking things into account such as genetic scaffolding, or the fact that biological development during an individual's lifetime doesn't require this. Remember what you think does not matter.
messianic114 wrote:
Then tell me why orthology of human and chimp genomes are consistent with mutation rates, genetic drift and nested hierarchies, just as evolution predicted.
Done. Tell me why you didn't bother to look at it the first two times.

Sorry, three.
messianic114 wrote:
I would like to see the numbers predicted on mutation rates and what evolution predicted specifically
No you wouldn't. Every time evidence is requested then given you ignore it, only to repeat fallacious arguments based on your misunderstandings of the concept. Ultimately you will not be satisfied even if you were provided with a step by step, organism by organism, mutation by mutation account of the entire history of life on Earth for the whole 3.5 billion years. Therefore we do not have to adhere to your absurd demands, until you first start demonstrating an understanding of evolutionary biology without creationist caricatures, and then provide us with the function of each and every base in the human genome along with evidence that it performs such. And while you're at it, do the same for nylonase and Podarcus sicula, that way you will help backed up your assertion that the genomes switched on new functions just right for unforseable events which may never have even occurred. This is not an unreasonable request since we would still have more work to do than you would.
messianic114 wrote:
otherwise they could be shooting an arrow into the woods and then painting the bulleye around the arrow.
No, that's your job. Note again that you still have yet to provide your alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#117516 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The land of migrant, I donít know, Charies tells us that itís somewhere in northern Europe. But EU rules (much hated by bigots in the EU) allows all members to migrate between EU countries so perhaps the entire EU has become the land of migrant.
Nope Iím not starving, just had second breakfast of coffee and an alpen cereal bar. Elevenses at 10:00, such a wonderful institution, first breakfast at 6:30 and lunch at 12:30 and then starve until dinner time at 18:00
So Northern to migrate where would that place be in the US?

Is it in view from the up stairs really like a an anthill and people scatter every day...

Hard to keep track of them especially when they come inside we snuff them...

Maybe that is an attitude love thy visiting bugs what to ants really like to fest on?

In Europa with in to travel was always alright driving through the east never was a problem...

Where are you locked up at? Where do they have you ponder on life? Or is your mommy feeding you at special times maybe you are speaking for someone I know...

SOunds to me like you are a SENIOR?:)

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#117517 Jul 10, 2014
Are you Spanish? LOL

A world at Large so what would the % be of Americans never having ventured outside let alone outside of a box...

Mind set on possessions and the power to hold on to everything and more...

Yikes really old people can be freaking mean outright ugly...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117518 Jul 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
<quoted text>
First of all, "kind" is bullshite. It's a meaningless and far too generic term. What we DO see is new species.
Of course I already showed it to you.(shrug)
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line. There's plenty more if you're interested - all predicted by evolution, and fall in line with nested hierarchies as expected.
But that's the key, isn't it? You're not interested in the evidence so you claim it doesn't exist. Simple fact of the matter is you're wrong.
And you're wrong because you're a liar. Feel free to actually address our previous posts which provided you with evidence you STILL haven't refuted. Until then your objections are worth diddly.(shrug)
.
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
.
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.
Secondly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
.
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
.
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line.
.
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
.
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117519 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to define "kind". What tests would you do to tell if two different groups were of the same "kind" or not? Creationist definitions of "kind" tend to fail. They do not have a working definition. If you can't make a working definition of kind it becomes a nonsense term and is of no value in a debate.
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#117520 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
.
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.
Secondly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
.
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
.
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line.
.
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
.
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
"One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change."

That sounds real good, except the fact that we know every animal is slightly genetically different, and over time this means change is inevitable.
As matter of fact it is a criteria in the definition of life, the ability to adapt, simply meaning life evolves, and no amount of horse puckey such as your above statement will change the fact life evolves, has evolved and will evolve. So you see no intelligent design is necessary .
One major falsification of ID is that if it were true, animals would not go extinct, and bloodlines would not perish. Unless you have a bigoted designer and equality is not a prerequisite to it's nature. So Heil Hitler to your intelligent designer Mr. messianic114.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117521 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.
You won't like my definition of "kind". My definition supports the theory of evolution. But my definition works. You are the one that wants to use "kind" while trying to refute evolution. It is up to you to define it in a self consistent manner.

It is always the person that makes the positive statement that must provide evidence for that belief. For example I can say that I do not believe in your God. That is a statement on my part that is relatively easy to support. Please note, I did not say "Your God does not exist". Now if you want to claim your God exists it is up to you to provide evidence for that God.

So do you want my definition of kind? A slight spoiler, in my definition of kind there is no change of kind in evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117522 Jul 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change."
That sounds real good, except the fact that we know every animal is slightly genetically different, and over time this means change is inevitable.
As matter of fact it is a criteria in the definition of life, the ability to adapt, simply meaning life evolves, and no amount of horse puckey such as your above statement will change the fact life evolves, has evolved and will evolve. So you see no intelligent design is necessary .
One major falsification of ID is that if it were true, animals would not go extinct, and bloodlines would not perish. Unless you have a bigoted designer and equality is not a prerequisite to it's nature. So Heil Hitler to your intelligent designer Mr. messianic114.
Not to forget that the analogy fails terribly because cars do not reproduce.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117523 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.[QUOTE]

Hey, no worries. I have no problem at all with you making yourself look daft or dishonest. Or both.

[QUOTE who="messianic114"]S econdly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
What an ironic question considering it is you who avoids whatever you find to be theologically inconvenient.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
You have already demonstrated that you have no idea what is to be expected of evolution. First of all the development of hard shells helps with survival. Survival helps with propagation. Propagation helps diversity. Diversity leads to evolution. Second of all, fossilisation, already a rare process, is even more so when applied to soft-bodied organisms. Hence we see an apparent "explosion" when we see the appearance of hard-bodied lifeforms.
messianic114 wrote:
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Wrong. The fossil record indicates common ancestry between humans and chimps approximately 7 million years ago. So just point out which of those fossils I gave you DON'T match nested hierarchies. Or just point to ONE genome that also doesn't fit with nested hierarchies. Just point to ONE of those fossils which doesn't match comparative anatomy. Then do the calculations on the mutation rates yourself and tell us that they don't line up to roughly 6 to 8 million years ago.
messianic114 wrote:
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
And next you will be asking "Why are there still monkeys???"
.
messianic114 wrote:
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
However cars do not self-replicate like life-forms do. Plus we have evidence of their "intelligent design". The only evidence of intelligent design on Earth are of lifeforms native to that planet. Zero evidence of anything else. You're also ignoring the fact of evolutionary progression observed in the fossil record, something else which I explained to you in the linky. This is WHY Darwin got famous - for making SUCCESSFUL predictions. He didn't get famous for coming up with a tentative hypothesis which he found to be utterly wrong the next day. Of course Darwin's original theory has since evolved into what is now known as the modern evolutionary synthesis, and is currently understood to be the cornerstone of modern biology. So far no-one on the entire PLANET has been able to falsify it yet.

Note again that the more you continue posting, the more and more points you leave unaddressed. Of course you could make up for that by providing your own alternative explanation that passes the scientific method and does a better job of explaining the evidence. So far this has not been forthcoming.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117524 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.
Of course. Fundies love to try to get everyone else to do their own homework.

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
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 7 min unreals_dad 6,552
News Millions of Brits no longer using a pen 8 min Princess Finny Fe... 12
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 12 min Julia 2,056
News 'Large tortoise blocking the A24' 17 min Spotted Girl 4
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 19 min Princess Finny Fe... 74,298
Poll Funny people on here you miss and why (Jul '15) 44 min Bad Bex 99
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 56 min Ohio Sam 215,284
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 5 hr DMan 3,744
A to Z songs by title or group! 9 hr Rider on the Storm 1,562
More from around the web