Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222225 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118707 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Pints?
I'll have one. Make mine an IPA.
Seriously debating with Chuckls about English is the same as arguing with KAB about the flood. Neither has any evidence that supports their claims and in their opinion since you cannot prove them 100% wrong that means they are correct.
Never mind that all of the evidence found goes against their claims, as long as there is the faintest glimmer of hope for them they assume that they are correct.
Cheers!
Good point .... uhhh pint.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118709 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Was that area B known then? English according to sources, was first spoken in England. Not in Denmark or Germany.
Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Denmark and northern Germany (now how many times have I said this? 20 times?)

And Anglo-Saxon is generally considered to be the first stage of English. That is why linguists also call it "Old-English". Anglo-Saxon and Old-English are the same thing, they are synonyms. Old-English was until ~1000 mutually intelligible with the Old-Saxon spoken in Denmark and Northern Germany at those times. That's why German, Dutch and English are RELATED languages. They share the same ancestral language.

Hence, English (the language in its subsequent stages) did not start in England but was taken to England by the Jutes, Angles and Saxons in the form of Anglo-Saxon. And while Anglo-Saxon is considered by modern linguistics to be the first stage of the English language, English does not originate from England. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon spoken at the mainland of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon spoken of England are were too close.

Or, in other words, the Anglo-Saxon FIRST developed in Denmark and northern Germany and THEN was taken to England with the migrating Germanic tribes, where it continued to be spoken for several centuries until the Norman evasions brought French, which caused Anglo-Saxon to develop into Middle-English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118710 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No da da da back to kindergarten.
1) see, Charlie, there lots of papas and mamas who took a boat and sailed to a land that is not called England.
Da da da. Pay attention Charlie, don't play with your dinky toy, listen to me!
2). all those papas and mamas came from a land that we now call Denmark and also form the north of Germany.
Da da da. Charlie! Pay attention and don't pull Johnny on his hair!
3) all those papas and mamas spoke their own language.
Da da da. No, Charlie you are not allowed to go to the toilet for the 4th time in just 15 minutes!
4) this language was already spoken in Denmark and Germany.
Da da da. Charlie!
5) Now I have a question for you all: where does that language come from? Johnny? Yes! You are right! From Denmark and Germany!
Charlie! Don't annoy Johnny.
And that language went into extinction in Denmark and Germany only to be preserved in England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118711 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Denmark and northern Germany (now how many times have I said this? 20 times?)
And Anglo-Saxon is generally considered to be the first stage of English. That is why linguists also call it "Old-English". Anglo-Saxon and Old-English are the same thing, they are synonyms. Old-English was until ~1000 mutually intelligible with the Old-Saxon spoken in Denmark and Northern Germany at those times. That's why German, Dutch and English are RELATED languages. They share the same ancestral language.
Hence, English (the language in its subsequent stages) did not start in England but was taken to England by the Jutes, Angles and Saxons in the form of Anglo-Saxon. And while Anglo-Saxon is considered by modern linguistics to be the first stage of the English language, English does not originate from England. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon spoken at the mainland of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon spoken of England are were too close.
Or, in other words, the Anglo-Saxon FIRST developed in Denmark and northern Germany and THEN was taken to England with the migrating Germanic tribes, where it continued to be spoken for several centuries until the Norman evasions brought French, which caused Anglo-Saxon to develop into Middle-English.
Crap. If you want to go by that analogy, English did not started in that place you claimed, it started from the East or far east, those tribes were barbarians that migrated to mainland Europe and later to Britain.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118712 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ok Denmark and Germany , how come it is Danish and German today? How did it suddenly vanished into thin air? Food for thought. The English in England preserved it to this very day, therefore, it began in England.
You have not one clue about language development.

Latin was taken to France, Spain and Portugal up to Romania by the Romans when they conquered those areas. They superimposed their language and all the people there eventually dropped their own languages and started to speak Latin. But in France the original language was Gaulish, a Celtic language. In Spain and Portugal several languages were spoken: also Celtic but also several neolithic languages. Bask is one of the latter because it is not related to any of the other European, Semitic or Berber languages in the surrounding regions.

Later, after the collapse of the Roman empire, mainly Germanic tribes went on the move. They managed to migrate to all edges of Europe: Russia, Germany, Middle-Europe, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and even North-Africa. They also brought with them their languages. French, basically, is a Romance language. But is has acquired many words of Gaulish and Germanic origin.

If a native speaker of Celtic learned to speak Latin ,you get other results than the ones speaking neolithic languages. They bring in their own words and their tongue. This influence by the original languages is called substratum language. They even will influence the grammar.

Hence, the Latin brought by the Romans to Spain, France, etc. developed in different languages in the centuries thereafter.

The same happened with German and Danish.

Danish is a case apart. Until 1000 mainly West-Germanic dialects were spoken in Denmark, like Saxon and Jutish (dialects of the same language). From 737, there was a migration from the eastern islands to the mainland (still called "Jutland"). Those immigrants spoke Old-Norse. It was Old-Norse that eventually developed into Danish. Therefore Danish today belongs to the north-branch of the Germanic languages. Hence, modern Danish developed out of Old-Norse rather than out Saxon or Jutish dialects.

German developed out of a mix of several Germanic dialects.
German started with the so called High German consonant shift. This shift took place in the southern part of nowadays Germany, in the Alemannic dialects. It started between the 3rd and 5th century and was finished in the 9th century. The cause it the influence of Gallo-Romance. The southern parts of Germany were former Celtic areas, and the vicinity of Gaul (nowadays France) was tangible. Moreover, in Switzerland (today 70% German speaking) the Helvetti lived, a Celtic tribe.

The High German consonant shift gradually advanced to the north. Eventually it also affected the Saxon speaking population in the north and east. From that moment a definite split between Anglo-Saxon and Old-High-German occurred.

It is astonishing that you do not even realize how modern languages evolved.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118713 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Pints?
I'll have one. Make mine an IPA.
Seriously debating with Chuckls about English is the same as arguing with KAB about the flood. Neither has any evidence that supports their claims and in their opinion since you cannot prove them 100% wrong that means they are correct.
Never mind that all of the evidence found goes against their claims, as long as there is the faintest glimmer of hope for them they assume that they are correct.
English is the language of England, yes the Danes and Germans are close cousins to the English, they were one and the same people before the changes, English to this very day despite its many influences still remain, English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118714 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheers!
Good point .... uhhh pint.
Pints? I thought you are above perfect. The Grammar School thing.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118715 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Denmark and northern Germany (now how many times have I said this? 20 times?)
And Anglo-Saxon is generally considered to be the first stage of English. That is why linguists also call it "Old-English". Anglo-Saxon and Old-English are the same thing, they are synonyms. Old-English was until ~1000 mutually intelligible with the Old-Saxon spoken in Denmark and Northern Germany at those times. That's why German, Dutch and English are RELATED languages. They share the same ancestral language.
Hence, English (the language in its subsequent stages) did not start in England but was taken to England by the Jutes, Angles and Saxons in the form of Anglo-Saxon. And while Anglo-Saxon is considered by modern linguistics to be the first stage of the English language, English does not originate from England. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon spoken at the mainland of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon spoken of England are were too close.
Or, in other words, the Anglo-Saxon FIRST developed in Denmark and northern Germany and THEN was taken to England with the migrating Germanic tribes, where it continued to be spoken for several centuries until the Norman evasions brought French, which caused Anglo-Saxon to develop into Middle-English.
I have been repeating this, I repeat, England was not in existence then, it was named England by the same tribes that left Main land Europe. All languages were influenced including French.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118716 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not one clue about language development.
Latin was taken to France, Spain and Portugal up to Romania by the Romans when they conquered those areas. They superimposed their language and all the people there eventually dropped their own languages and started to speak Latin. But in France the original language was Gaulish, a Celtic language. In Spain and Portugal several languages were spoken: also Celtic but also several neolithic languages. Bask is one of the latter because it is not related to any of the other European, Semitic or Berber languages in the surrounding regions.
Later, after the collapse of the Roman empire, mainly Germanic tribes went on the move. They managed to migrate to all edges of Europe: Russia, Germany, Middle-Europe, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and even North-Africa. They also brought with them their languages. French, basically, is a Romance language. But is has acquired many words of Gaulish and Germanic origin.
If a native speaker of Celtic learned to speak Latin ,you get other results than the ones speaking neolithic languages. They bring in their own words and their tongue. This influence by the original languages is called substratum language. They even will influence the grammar.
Hence, the Latin brought by the Romans to Spain, France, etc. developed in different languages in the centuries thereafter.
The same happened with German and Danish.
Danish is a case apart. Until 1000 mainly West-Germanic dialects were spoken in Denmark, like Saxon and Jutish (dialects of the same language). From 737, there was a migration from the eastern islands to the mainland (still called "Jutland"). Those immigrants spoke Old-Norse. It was Old-Norse that eventually developed into Danish. Therefore Danish today belongs to the north-branch of the Germanic languages. Hence, modern Danish developed out of Old-Norse rather than out Saxon or Jutish dialects.
German developed out of a mix of several Germanic dialects.
German started with the so called High German consonant shift. This shift took place in the southern part of nowadays Germany, in the Alemannic dialects. It started between the 3rd and 5th century and was finished in the 9th century. The cause it the influence of Gallo-Romance. The southern parts of Germany were former Celtic areas, and the vicinity of Gaul (nowadays France) was tangible. Moreover, in Switzerland (today 70% German speaking) the Helvetti lived, a Celtic tribe.
The High German consonant shift gradually advanced to the north. Eventually it also affected the Saxon speaking population in the north and east. From that moment a definite split between Anglo-Saxon and Old-High-German occurred.
It is astonishing that you do not even realize how modern languages evolved.
The Dominant language in France even though there may be other, is French. There is no evidence but historical evidence of English in that part. But to this very day , that evidence is seen in England.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118717 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that language went into extinction in Denmark and Germany only to be preserved in England.
No it didn't went "extinct".
The old Germanic dialects spoken in northern Europe SPLIT UP.
Modern English is as different from those old 4th century dialects than modern German.

Compare it with family relations: when a couple brings forth children, those children are related but they all differ in the same time. That will be comparable with the related Germanic languages of the 4th century, which were:
- Scandinavian
- East-Germanic
- North-Sea Germanic (also called Ingveonic)
- Elbe-Germanic (also called Hermionic).

Those four languages were still pretty mutually ineligible. Something like differences between modern Norse, Danish and Swedish, which with some effort, understand each other. But the differences are to distinct to not call them different languages.

Those children also will bring forth children. This will produce cousins. They are still family but differ more from each other than brothers and sisters. In terms of language:
- Scandinavian basically was Proto-Norse which developed into later Norse, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic)
- East-Germanic developed in later Gothic and Burgundian (all extinct)
- North-Sea Germanic, basically had two main dialects: Frisian and Anglo-Saxon and gave raise to modern English, Dutch and Frisian.
- Elbe-Germanic which eventually underwent High-German consonant shifts and became modern German.

The High-German consonant shifts emerged in the very southern Alemannic dialects of the Elbe-Germanic and spread to the north, when it eventually also swallowed the Saxon dialects.

The tribes which migrated to England escaped from this consonant shift and underwent its own influences (French, Brittonic substrates, etc.). that's why English became a different language from German (but still is categorized as "West-Germanic"). Dutch emerged also by escaping the high German consonant shift.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118718 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The Dominant language in France even though there may be other, is French. There is no evidence but historical evidence of English in that part. But to this very day , that evidence is seen in England.
Irrelevant.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118719 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> English is the language of England, yes the Danes and Germans are close cousins to the English, they were one and the same people before the changes, English to this very day despite its many influences still remain, English.
Again a completely irrelevant post not addressing the subject.
You are lacking any understanding of language development altogether.
Basically you are tattling about things you have no clue of.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118720 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are indeed a noise maker, who are you? What do you think you have, that is making you to be proud? Now listen and listen very good, the language of England is English? True. What about Germany and Denmark? False. So, your conclusions based on that is false. Period.
COMPLETELY irrelevant post.
Your posts are getting worse with every new one.
There is no level below Kindergarten.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118721 Jul 19, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Crap. If you want to go by that analogy, English did not started in that place you claimed, it started from the East or far east, those tribes were barbarians that migrated to mainland Europe and later to Britain.
Muddle headed crap and rubbish.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#118722 Jul 19, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Devo fan, huh?
Abject lack of understanding of what evolution is; noted.
Lol - De-evolution of man. Good one.

I met those guys years ago in Coconut Grove, Fl. Funny this is they really believed in the whole de-evolution thing. Crazy times...
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118723 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't, but a biologist could. We know that many people cannot drink milk. The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
<quoted text>
I can't, but a biologist could. We know that many people cannot drink milk. The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
Or a case where a mutation is both positive and negative, I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
<quoted text>
The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
.
This is like saying cancer is recent, because we didn't record the data earlier. How do you know this wasn't termed colic?
.
Also the loss of ability is not supporting evolution.
.
<quoted text>
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
.
Are you going to be able to show that the bacteria didn't have the ability to metabolize nylon prior to the discovery?
What testing was done on the bacteria prior to its discovery?
.
<quoted text>
I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
.
How could a mutation that has caused most of those who have it be considered a positive mutation?
.
<quoted text>
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
Its not a persistence in not understanding it is questioning the conclusions and testing to show that these things actually happen. So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed.
.
Answer this one question. How could the12 million genetic changes needed to distinguish a chimpanzee from a human happened in only 6 million years?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#118724 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.
.
This is like saying cancer is recent, because we didn't record the data earlier. How do you know this wasn't termed colic?
.
Also the loss of ability is not supporting evolution.
.
<quoted text>
I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.
.
Are you going to be able to show that the bacteria didn't have the ability to metabolize nylon prior to the discovery?
What testing was done on the bacteria prior to its discovery?
.
<quoted text>
I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.
.
How could a mutation that has caused most of those who have it be considered a positive mutation?
.
<quoted text>
Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.
.
Its not a persistence in not understanding it is questioning the conclusions and testing to show that these things actually happen. So far you haven't shown any testing so the methods can be critically analysed.
.
Answer this one question. How could the12 million genetic changes needed to distinguish a chimpanzee from a human happened in only 6 million years?
It isn't the loss of anything. Some populations have gained the ability to digest milk through mutation.

Sickle cell is a positive mutation because those heterozygous for the trait are provided protection from malaria. This is information easily found on the web. You could look it up yourself.

Since nylon is a synthetic material. It was invented in 1939. So, the question you would have to answer is why would a bacteria have a gene for enzyme active on a material it never encountered until after 1939.

Why wouldn't loss of function or structure not be part of evolution? In fact, it is. Parasites or troglobytic organisms have lost certain functions and/or structures and are highly adapted organisms.

Given all the questions and the kind of questions you ask, do you think you are up to the task of critically evaluating data on evolution?

For one thing the difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes is not based solely on changes that have occurred in our genome. The chimpanzee genome has experienced mutations as well. Even if all these 12,000,000 differences did come from humans alone, it would only be a couple of mutations a year, which is an order a magnitude below what we experience.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118726 Jul 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It isn't the loss of anything. Some populations have gained the ability to digest milk through mutation.
Sickle cell is a positive mutation because those heterozygous for the trait are provided protection from malaria. This is information easily found on the web. You could look it up yourself.
Since nylon is a synthetic material. It was invented in 1939. So, the question you would have to answer is why would a bacteria have a gene for enzyme active on a material it never encountered until after 1939.
Why wouldn't loss of function or structure not be part of evolution? In fact, it is. Parasites or troglobytic organisms have lost certain functions and/or structures and are highly adapted organisms.
Given all the questions and the kind of questions you ask, do you think you are up to the task of critically evaluating data on evolution?
For one thing the difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes is not based solely on changes that have occurred in our genome. The chimpanzee genome has experienced mutations as well. Even if all these 12,000,000 differences did come from humans alone, it would only be a couple of mutations a year, which is an order a magnitude below what we experience.
.
<quoted text>
It isn't the loss of anything. Some populations have gained the ability to digest milk through mutation.
.
How do you know that some of the population hasn't LOST the ability to digest lactose?
.
<quoted text>
Sickle cell is a positive mutation because those heterozygous for the trait are provided protection from malaria. This is information easily found on the web. You could look it up yourself.
.
You assume that I am not familiar with this. Regardless (even if this is a positive mutation) if the bearers of sickle cell are dying off and these genes are not passed on to non-sickle cell victims it is a dead end genetically and no positive benefit will be realized.
.
<quoted text>
Since nylon is a synthetic material. It was invented in 1939. So, the question you would have to answer is why would a bacteria have a gene for enzyme active on a material it never encountered until after 1939.
.
How about the enzyme can metabolize other materials, nylon just happens to be metabolized also. Since no test was made on the bacteria, we don't know if it had the ability before nylon was invented or not. What you have is an assumption, not tested science.
.
<quoted text>
Why wouldn't loss of function or structure not be part of evolution? In fact, it is. Parasites or troglobytic organisms have lost certain functions and/or structures and are highly adapted organisms.
.
Firstly you need to argue with Big Al on this as he (I believe) asserted evolution goes one way only. If we have a loss we are devolving (if I can make up a term). If this is possible who is to say that the fossil record is not showing a gain as assumed?
.
Secondly it was my argument that if evolution is random chance then there is a possibility of losing gains made while we are waiting for the multitude of changes needed to evolve from one kind to another.
.
Do you have data showing how many mutations are occurring each year? Remember also that the mutations must be significant enough to accumulate to make a change from an ape to a human. So neutral or negative mutations would not be expected to make any difference in changing an ape to a human. These mutations MUST also be passed on.
.
While I was looking up data on the difference between a chimp and a human I came across a study which showed we have more in common genetically with cattle than a chimp. Are we to conclude then we evolved from cattle?
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v44/n8/extre... page 10
.
<quoted text>
Given all the questions and the kind of questions you ask, do you think you are up to the task of evaluating data on evolution?
.
This seems the typical answer of evolutionists...you can't understand so we will give you straw for answers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118727 Jul 19, 2014
messainic, please don't try to argue from idiocy. You were give facts and figures and links. Go back and read them until you understand them. If you need a clarification on a point ask for it.

Please don't ask questions that show you did not look at the materials already given.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#118728 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Removed for space.
Because we know the mutations that result in the trait. Molecular techniques allow us to identify genes you know.

I am not assuming anything. I am drawing conclusions based on the evidence of your posts.

Nylonase is specific to the substrate nylon. What we have is an excellent example of evolution in the laboratory. It not only satisfies your unwarranted need for a mutation to create new function, it poses no known harm to the bacteria.

Who is Big Al? You mentioned it and I explained that it isn't so. A loss is still evolution. I realize this seems a difficult concept for fundamentalists/creationists/I Dists, but that is the way it works. The loss of function or structure is driven by natural selection and provides an advantage for organism that has the loss. Addition of structure is more commonly known, but it is not alone in what constitutes evolution. A pickup truck can have a camper shell, but a race truck doesn't need one. It would be a disadvantage if it had one.

Again, you provide evidence that I am drawing conclusions about your knowledge and not making assumptions. You say our knowledge of the fossil record is assumption because you don't understand what we know and it isn't to your advantage to acknowledge the facts. Our understanding of the fossil record is based on the evidence. The horse lineage for instance, is represented by the tiny, four toed Hyrocatherium, then you see a reduction to three toes in the later and larger Merychippus and finally the modern horse with the largest size and a single toe. This example is overly simplified for space, but is clearly seen in the fossil record.

Evolution is not solely random as has been explained on this forum so often it is ridiculous that the claim keeps popping up. Natural selection is not a completely random mechanism. Still chance does have a play and it is possible that an organism with a beneficial mutation might be lost before the mutation can be fixed. It would be a much lest probable event that a population with the advantageous mutation fixed would lose it and continue on. If the mutation is advantageous it is under the protection of natural selection. However, most organisms that have ever lived are extinct so it does happen due to extinction events. But if your remote ancestors become extinct, well you should be able figure that out.

Your closing statement is typical of the straw man arguments posed by those ignorant of the science, biased to their preconceived notions and with no better imagination than to pick tired insults to throw.

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
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 8 min quilterqueen 26,792
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min Suezanne 222,117
Two words only please! (Aug '08) 9 min quilterqueen 41,654
Word association (Jun '07) 10 min wichita-rick 6,846
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 15 min quilterqueen 21,000
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 17 min quilterqueen 14,023
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 17 min Suezanne 694
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 28 min cjt12 5,473
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Thigh High Sock 25,315
More from around the web