Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205211 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.

messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119901 Aug 11, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not the right thread to preach. ENOUGH ALREADY!
.
Firstly this is a free forum, you are not required to attend.
Secondly you are preaching yourself "Nihil curo de ista tua stulta"
Thirdly you are not required to answer.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119902 Aug 11, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What is the difficulty in understanding that the elements could not have just done this without guidance from a reasoning source that thinks, wills, perceives, judges etc?
Why do you think that is required? We *know* complexity can grow in certain chemical environments. What do you think limits it from becoming life?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119903 Aug 11, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Messy, why are you lying AGAIN by asking for evidence you have ZERO interest in?
<quoted text>
Why would they do a STUPID thing like that?
Mess, you've already been TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS THREAD that C14 dating isn't to be used past 60,000 years, a hundred tops.
You DO know when the Cambrian explosion was purported to take place, yes?
.
<quoted text>
Have their been new species in 500M years? If so then your question is irrelevant.
But then, so is the fact you've never been able to refute a single one of our posts so far.
And then further, so is the fact that evidence doesn't matter to your position anyway,
.
<quoted text>
And that was already addressed too.
So really the only thing relevant to ask you is - how come no matter what we write you will ignore it no matter what? When will you finally address the only thing that's important here?
EVIDENCE.
.
messianic114 wrote:
I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?
Why would they do a STUPID thing like that?
.
Well lets see, if the C14 was found in the quantities expected (in this case zero) then it would validate the dating by strata. But if the quantites are not found in the expected range, then maybe one would reconsider the strata dating method. Oh my bad, that would be following the evidence and the scientific method which requires testing.
.
<quoted text>
Have their been new species in 500M years? If so then your question is irrelevant.
.
Only to you, who would disregard the fact that this isn't occurring as it should. Oh my bad again, this would be testing a theory.
.
<quoted text>
And that was already addressed too.
So really the only thing relevant to ask you is - how come no matter what we write you will ignore it no matter what? When will you finally address the only thing that's important here?
.
I don't ignore your posts I question them. So far you have not been answering the most obvious of questions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119904 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?
.
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
.
Evolution is blind, it doesn't look for niches and if you can say this then there would be no new evolution. Which is it?
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
regarding evolution getting more complex
it is true. It need not. It can.
.
But the fossil record is showing a progression and the fact that mankind is the most complex is also evidence that it is getting more complex and to star out as a single celled organism to what we have today also shows it is getting more complex.
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
Do we have any evidence of evolution regressing?
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119905 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that is required? We *know* complexity can grow in certain chemical environments. What do you think limits it from becoming life?
Life is much more than certain chemical reactions. Life is a set of instructional systems that work toward causing it to become what it is patterned to be.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119906 Aug 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
<quoted text>
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
<quoted text>
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
<quoted text>
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.

polymath wrote
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
.
How does this retard the decay of C14?
.
<quoted text>
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
.
But we have not seen a new body type in 500 million years, This doesn't seem like occasionally. Additionally evolution cannot stop a new body type from emerging even if only to die off later.
.
<quoted text>
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
.
The overall increase in complexity is what is supposedly shown from the fossil record and by other indicators. There is no escaping this.
.
<quoted text>
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119907 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Of course not. C14 dating is only good for ages of about 50,000 years or less. Do you understand why?
.
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.
.
<quoted text>
Because those phyla diversified (by evolution) and took up the avalable niches.
.
Evolution is blind, it doesn't look for niches and if you can say this then there would be no new evolution. Which is it?
.
<quoted text> regarding evolution getting more complex
it is true. It need not. It can.
.
But the fossil record is showing a progression and the fact that mankind is the most complex is also evidence that it is getting more complex and to star out as a single celled organism to what we have today also shows it is getting more complex.
.
Do we have any evidence of evolution regressing?
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.

And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119908 Aug 11, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
.
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
.
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
.
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
.
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#119909 Aug 11, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What is the difficulty in understanding that the elements could not have just done this without guidance from a reasoning source that thinks, wills, perceives, judges etc?
You can claim it, but you can't show it. That is the difficulty.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119910 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
.
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
.
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
.
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
.
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.
Scientists do NOT use C14 to date 'fossils'. They instead use one of the 40 other different methods of radiometric dating techniques.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119911 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution builds upon abiogenesis (another unproven theory) in which the first simple life form came into being.
Evolution does no such thing.

Chemical abiogenesis is completely separate from the evolution of species.

HOWEVER the first life came about (abiogenesis, alien seeding, Jesus saying "POOF!"), we know conclusively that subsequently species evolved one from the other in nested hierarchies by means of genetic variation plus natural selection.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
(Funny we are not seeing abiogenesis today).
??? Life is already here. No need for the original abiogenesis to take place.

And the earth is greatly different than it was 4 billion years ago.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are saying there is not a necessity to get more complex. Then how did it become more complex?
It's not NECESSARY for successive generations to be more complex. Sometimes they are LESS complex, as polymath pointed out for example, the situation of cave fish losing their eyesight because they don't NEED it in the dark. Is that getting MORE complex or less complex?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said it is faith. But until there is conclusive evidence for evolution, why should I believe it.
We don't "believe" in evolution, like you "believe" your Genesis myth as literal, factual history. We ACCEPT the science behind evolution because there is a mountain of evidence and experimentation to support it. If there were no such evidence, we would not accept evolution. You, however, would still accept your Bible stories, because you've been TOLD they are true.

And in SCIENCE, there has been conclusive evidence to support evolution for at least 150 years. It is only in some fundamentalist Christian sects that it is said "there is no evidence," by folks working an ignorant religious agenda.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119912 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another question for you. We have been culturing bacteria for at least 150 years. In that time approx 4 million generations of bacteria would have been born from one initial bacteria. What have we to show for all those generations? I will tell you.......... bacteria. No change to another kind in 4 million generations.
You haven;t a CLUE what you are saying here.

"Bacteria" is NOT the name of a SPECIES.

There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)

Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)

Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.

There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.

So if we observe bacteria in the lab evolving into new SPECIES of bacteria, that is a strong demonstration of speciation, or what Christians mistakenly call "macro-evolution."

A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119913 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
.
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
.
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
.
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
.
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.
Nope, now you are being a lying idiot. There have been cases, usually by creatards, of purposefully wrong uses of radiometric dating. Sometimes scientists have found that the method does not actually work. The first time a method does not work usually requires additional investigation. Once you know why a method does not always work that mistake can be avoided in the future.

For example it was found that you cannot date sea life very early. And that is because sea life does not get its carbon from the atmosphere, which is relatively "new" C14, but from carbon that is already in sea water. Much of that carbon has already been there thousands of years and that will give false old ages.

Do you understand this?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119914 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
.
How does this retard the decay of C14?
It doesn't. Do you understand how C14 dating is done? One of the first steps is determining the amount of C14 in your sample. If there is a background level of C14 in the environment due to local radioactivity, that will mean there is MORE C14 in the sample than would be appropriate for the actual age of the sample. That would mean you get a a younger age than is correct.

So, for example, if a sample starts out with 1 milligram of C14 and the background produces a constant level of 1 microgram of C14, you can get very accurate ages for the first 5 or 6 half-lives, but no date for 10 half-lives would be accurate. That is because the amount from the original sample would be about the same as the amount from background when 10 half-lives have passed.

So the C14 continues to decay, but it is also made by the background radioactivity, so an equilibrium is reached. Once the amount of C14 from the original sample is comparable to the background amount, the results will be 'bogus', even though they will be quite fine previously.
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.
You asked for an example of 'regression' and I provided it. There are other examples of increased complexity.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119915 Aug 11, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven;t a CLUE what you are saying here.
"Bacteria" is NOT the name of a SPECIES.
There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)
Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)
Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.
There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.
So if we observe bacteria in the lab evolving into new SPECIES of bacteria, that is a strong demonstration of speciation, or what Christians mistakenly call "macro-evolution."
A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.
wow you all have been busy here. I went back 10 pages and couldn't find where i loeft off so i will start here.

you say "a bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria".
using your word "kind", what "kind" of bacteria have we seen change into a new "kind" of bacteria"
1) what "kind" did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change it's classifications?
5) what "new kind" did the "starting kind" turn into?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119916 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
In the first place they weren't scientists because scientists will not use C14 on specimen older than 50,000 years. It is 101 level of understanding when you study these methods on university as a geologist. NO scientists has EVER applied C14 on any fossil EVER. Because those "scientists" were creationists. Who tried to discredit the method. Only creationists are that stupid and ignorant. C14 is only used in archaeology and at most in very young
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
Well, what do you think will happen when you apply a method on a specimen that is not suited for it? Answer: you get false readings. Secondly, C14 is not used on fossils. The reason for it is that the method requires the original carbon from the died organism still to be in place. In >99% of the fossils this is not the case. Fossils are re-mineralizations by replacement of the original tissue by minerals from the surrounding soil.

Apart form their age, also the absence of the original carbon is a no-go for C14.
Hence, is someone dated a fossil, it should have been someone who has no idea of the method. For instance and particularly creationists.

Now it is PERFECTLY possible to find C14 in very old, former organic remnants. For instance, coal and oil. Both coal and oil are buried dead organisms after anaerobic decomposition, compression and geothermal heating. They do contain the original organic carbon but they tend to lay in underground pockets where there is natural radioactivity around. C14 is formed in the atmosphere by nitrogen isotopes being bombarded by cosmic radiation. Underground the nitrogen in the coal and oil layers is bombarded by the natural radioactive radiation.

THEREFORE, when taking samples for C14 dating, one of the methodological prerequisites is to measure the natural radioactive radiation on that spot. when it exceeds the average, natural radioactive background radiation, the specimen is discarded.
SunductionZone wrote:
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.

[QUOTE who="SunductionZone" ]<quoted text>
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
Again you have reading issues.
"Evolution is not an upward moving" is not an equivalent of "devolution is not occurring".
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119917 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.
In the first place the first life is not thought to have emerged from amino acids but from self-replicating RNA (the most prevalent hypothesis of abiogenesis -note - NOT evolution theory). RNA is not an amino acid.
this is not a major flaw here in this context but please stay tuned with what's ACTUALLY been said and - particularly - NOT what creationisms THINKS what has been said.

Evolution does not show a progression to "better" suited organisms.
The only thong happening is that individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements will have better survival and reproduction chances and will pass on their genes to the next generation. Species change when the environmental conditions change and require different traits.

I could live with the adjective "more complex" because it is neutral and doesn't presuppose unnecessary judgements.

The complexness of life is caused by life itself.
Because other species around are ALSO part of the environmental conditions. For instances, species that are on the menu. Or predators. Or infectious parasites.

When the first diversification occurred, life became self-affecting.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119918 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Firstly this is a free forum, you are not required to attend.
Secondly you are preaching yourself "Nihil curo de ista tua stulta"
Thirdly you are not required to answer.
You certainly got the third down good, eh Messy?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119919 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Well lets see, if the C14 was found in the quantities expected (in this case zero) then it would validate the dating by strata. But if the quantites are not found in the expected range, then maybe one would reconsider the strata dating method.
Or maybe by using something that is only expected to work on samples 50,000 years or less on samples expected to be out of its range would be pointless as the results would be unreliable no matter what showed up.

You're using a car to swim. Unless you're James Bond you've alread sunk.
messianic114 wrote:
Oh my bad, that would be following the evidence and the scientific method which requires testing.
Yep. Testing via appropriate measures, which has already been explained to you to be not appropriate. But why are you pretending that this an issue for you when testing isn't relevant to your position?
messianic114 wrote:
Only to you, who would disregard the fact that this isn't occurring as it should. Oh my bad again, this would be testing a theory.
And since this point was already addressed by me, to you, personally, months ago, multiple times over, and I'm STILL waiting for you to address it, then yes it is your bad.

Since it's been tested and passed.
messianic114 wrote:
I don't ignore your posts I question them. So far you have not been answering the most obvious of questions.
So far I've answered every point you've raised to me. As has everyone else. But you do ignore the posts because you ignore what addresses your points, only to go onto a different one or repeat a fallacious point we addressed already. If you were honest there would come a point where you would stop responding with just questions each time and address the flaws in your position. Since you never can, this means your posts can never make a valid point. Oh well.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119920 Aug 11, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place the first life is not thought to have emerged from amino acids but from self-replicating RNA (the most prevalent hypothesis of abiogenesis -note - NOT evolution theory). RNA is not an amino acid.
this is not a major flaw here in this context but please stay tuned with what's ACTUALLY been said and - particularly - NOT what creationisms THINKS what has been said.
what did the RNA originate/emerge from? and what or how would you say they became programmed(so to speak) to code, decode and regulate genes?
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution does not show a progression to "better" suited organisms.
The only thong happening is that individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements will have better survival and reproduction chances and will pass on their genes to the next generation. Species change when the environmental conditions change and require different traits.
I could live with the adjective "more complex" because it is neutral and doesn't presuppose unnecessary judgements.
The complexness of life is caused by life itself.
Because other species around are ALSO part of the environmental conditions. For instances, species that are on the menu. Or predators. Or infectious parasites.
When the first diversification occurred, life became self-affecting.
"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 min eleanorigby 59,900
Word Association (Mar '10) 8 min Calisportsgirl 21,126
Word Association. (Nov '10) 9 min Calisportsgirl 19,728
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 10 min Calisportsgirl 19,850
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 12 min Calisportsgirl 5,195
Word association (Jun '07) 14 min Calisportsgirl 5,265
One Word (Jan '09) 14 min Calisportsgirl 17,126
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 197,721
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 33,279
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 4 hr Sparky 665
More from around the web