Why evolution is true
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#752 Jun 26, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct there are many scientists that are members of various Christian churches and other organizations that understand that science cannot be based on religious beliefs and must be based on real world, empirical evidence.
“…it [evolution] makes no assertions about any realm of reality outside of nature; it makes no claims for or against the existence of God…“- Robert J. Schneider Ph.D. Berea [Christian] College
" Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.

" Religion" on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800's that "the term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
A typical dictionary definition usually defines "religion," as does the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.), as "[belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; a system grounded in such belief and worship."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20R...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#753 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's Perry Mason when we need him?
Something's afoul here. The school claims that they had no intention of promoting a religion in any class setting. Either they
A) Didn't know that Creationist material was being used, and 'should' have looked into it 'beforehand'.
B) They 'did' know that Creationist material was being used, and didn't 'know' that doing so would be promoting a specific religion.
C) They 'did' know that the material being used 'was' promoting a specific religion...and perhaps would create controversy.
It was a summer school course that was lightly monitored, at first, until parents complained. One school administrator (a fellow evangelical Christian, I'd wager) told the teacher she could probably get away with it if she labelled the course a "philosophy" course rather than a "science" course.

Wrong, of course. You can't teach fundamentalist Christian Creationism in a public school under ANY guise. It's promoting religion, nothing more, nothing less.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course in relation to the unlikely event of "C" being the case, it really doesn't fair any publication well to stress the teacher being the wife of a 'minister'.
You don't think it's relevant that the teacher of this course, which is outside of her area of academic expertise but contains 20 fundamentalist Christian creationist videos happens to be the wife of the local AOG minister? You don't think it may just speak to her motivations in this case?
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the logical answer to a problem where policy conflicting videos are being used within a school course/subject? Remove the course/subject, or remove the use of policy conflicting videos and material?
The logical answer is for you CHristians to behave honestly and FOLLW THE LAW here, which is that you are to teach this stuff in your homes and churches but keep it the $%#@ out of the public schools. There would be no problem here if you CHristians just simply adhered to the law.

Why is that so hard? Are atheistic Darwinist scientists trying to force their way into your churches by demanding equal pulpit time on Sundays to explain evolution to you?
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Which goes back to my following question, is any neutral party in power seeking to harmonize ID or Design Philosophy with school policy?
No, why should they? ID is not considered actual SCIENCE by either courts or the relevant fields of science. It does not follow the Scientific Method for one, and it has no theory with which to work, secondly.

Let IDers develop ID as a SCIENCE (if they ever CAN), they we can all talk. If it is actual science, it could not be kept out of science classes.
Divine Buzz

San Diego, CA

#755 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>The reason I'm a YEC is based on both what I've read from Young Earth Creationists who are scientists, and how they relate to 'scripture'.
There's no such thing as Earth Creation science. If Creation scientists teach real science, why have they been banned from teaching it in public school science classes, nation wide?

Even Judge Jones (a Christian) said it wasn't real science and ruled ID could not be taught in Dover Pa.

Excerpt:
A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10545387/ns/technol...

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#756 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
" Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.
" Religion" on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800's that "the term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
A typical dictionary definition usually defines "religion," as does the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.), as "[belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; a system grounded in such belief and worship."
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20R...
Just for the record, how much do you know about basic chemistry? Specifically, what do you know about covalent bonding?

What about physics? Are you at least familiar with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

I ask this because, if you're not well grounded in at least those two areas, evolution through natural selection will make no sense to you at all.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#757 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
However, when you read the Bible, a work of fact, it becomes clear that the factual character named 'God' does not change His mind.
It's all about perspective it would appear.
Yet you do not read it as a total work of fact. You do not think the angle-human hybrids were real...or was it demon-human? Either way, you have allowed for the Bible to be not fact all the time. Which means...well you know what that means...I hope...
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#758 Jun 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, absolutely. Sternberg dishonestly try to sneak a Christian ID paper, "peer-reviewed" by several other "Christians IDers" into an actual scientific journal. He was publicly embarrassed but not fired. He has subsequently become a laughing stock int eh world of since, as well he should.
<quoted text>
Yes. I was asking if you knew of anything CONCRETE. I've seen statements made on the internet that the moon landings never happened and were faked in a Hollywood studio, but no actual links proving that.:)
<quoted text>
http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2006/01/creatio...
Videos:(incomplete list)
… Creation/Evolution
… Dating fossils and rocks
… The origen of life
… The Fossil Records
… Astronomy and the Bible
… Lucy: She's no Lady!
… From a Frog to a Prince
… Chemicals to Living Cells: Fastasy or Science?
… Unlocking the Mystery of Life
… Mt. Saint Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
… The Fire Below Us: Remembering Mount St. Helens
… Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
… The Grand Canyon Castastrophe
… Thousands...Not Billions
… Life's Story
… The Privileged Planet
… Rocks of Ages or Rock of Creation?
… Radioisotopes and the age of the earth
… Experiments in Stratification
… Icons of Evolution
… War of the Worldviews
… In the Beginning
… Evidences: the Record and the Flood
… Geologic Evidences
Hurst has tracked down the source of most of these videos. Nearly all hail from creationist organs like Answers in Genesis or ICR. One, The Fire Below Us, appears to be a legitimate documentary used to support creationist ideas, and several could not be identified.
Hurst's analysis: Score: 19 creation, 4 unknown, 1 documentary to support catastrophism, 0 evolution
Whats fasincating that these video makers had to hide behind their lies as to their origins.

That that point is blatantly missed, that it fly's over these Xtians heads is...well what were all talking about re; Creationism/ID. Its a scam, a farce and a wholly Xtian means to promulgate their Faith and their non-science.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#760 Jun 26, 2013
What's fascinating is that...
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#761 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm sure that most scientists that are theistic evolutionists have membership in church, Christian organizations, Christian Universities, etc. And many certainly promote the Judeo-Christian God. Do they have a 'religious' agenda?
2. You can't dismantle an argument with another argument. The original claim was that 30,000 'sects' compete with each other. You can read it for yourself. This is 'part' of the fabrication among others concerning this claim. For one, it's an inaccurate figure. In addition, it includes denominations that are 'not' differing from one another. There are off-shoots of off-shoots of off-shoots where the only differences may be in an alteration in the name, a regional distinction, distinctions that have nothing to do with differences in 'doctrine'. The other extreme would be 'sects','religions'(like Mormonism), and 'cults'. Anything with a reference to Christ in the title.
1. Can a Jew, be a real Jew if they design and manufacture a mixed fabric clothing line? Or does a real Jew have to stick to Levitical Law...?

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#762 Jun 26, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
are you mentally challenged?
1. EVERYONE knows what evolution is about
2. I NEVER said God was in the constitution.
3. EVERYONE knows the difference between public and private
something is VERY wrong with you.
1) Your thoughts on what evolution is.
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
sorry, but evolution is a THEORY. No one has ever witness evolution in progress.
Creation is a fact.
because of intelligent design
an accidental explosion in space could not generate life (intelligent designed life) from nothingness. Impossible.
nor could it created a perfect (in sync) solar system and universe as we experience. the distance from the sun and moon are exact to sustain all life. Conensidence?
the water and oxigen are exact to sustain all life? conensidence?
we have a 24 hr day every day, 4 seasons every year, conensidence?
we have more components in a single cell of life that map out SPECIFIC direction of growth for detailed design. conensidence?
evolution is a theory on which people rest their faith in no Creator God.
Every creation MUST have a creator.
2) You saying god is in the constitution.
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
well 200 plus yrs ago when America was founded and the constitution written GOD WAS included.
and the test of time, and history have shown that those fundimental 10 commandments have always been the foundation of laws nations built upon.
3) You not knowing the difference between public and private.
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
yes i know the difference but do you? you God haters are the ones scampering about trying to blot out God everywhere you turn.
a hotel is a PUBLIC place.
and you don't want God in a PUBLIC place, so you can't have it both ways.
Idiot.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#763 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right? Did you bother to read his side of the story on the link I gave you?
Why do people complain about IDer's not having their work published in actual Scientific Journals, and when then do, it was "snuck in"?
It's called a "Catch-22".
2. This is not a conspiracy theory. I'm sure various statements can verified if anyone wishes to bother to do so:
I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World...
Question 1: Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?
http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan...
To that parent, let go YOU CAN NOT FORCE FAITH on your children.

Which is the whole point isnt it? Faith can not be forced, a parent can not make a child believe, nor can any one of any faith do the same to others.

BUT this is exactly what many people of Faith think should be done! Forcing faith, no matter how light-handed they may be, on others.

The child in your example will either come to faith by his/her own - or not. End of story.

But thats not the case with a large number of American Xtians, they demand their children take their (parents) mantle of faith like they would the family name or family recipes.

If something in school has made this child think on his/her own - BE F'n happy! Its a good sign! Its what a parent sends their child out to do! Learn to think for themselves!

If they stumble, fall, and stay down for a bit...thats okay - and IF the parents taught them well, good morals/ethics, and didnt force them upon 'em like the Gestapo, the kids will work it out. No guarantee, but thats the risk all parents take.

But what does this parent want from their child? Conformity to their POV. Absolute control over their children's alleged Free-will...!

Fear of individual, free-thinking and free-choosing children, is what will always be the thing that undoes parents, and American Xtianity as a whole. Fear of people who think and decide to be Xtian on their very own...!
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#764 Jun 26, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
are you mentally challenged?
1. EVERYONE knows what evolution is about
2. I NEVER said God was in the constitution.
3. EVERYONE knows the difference between public and private
something is VERY wrong with you.
1. Is survival of the fittest, Darwin's idea?

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#765 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
" Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.
" Religion" on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800's that "the term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
A typical dictionary definition usually defines "religion," as does the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.), as "[belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; a system grounded in such belief and worship."
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20R...
Look, it burns because you have to argue against scientific reality from a book that is from the bronze-age.

Do you honestly believe that 99% of biologists are wrong?

Over 75% of ALL medical doctors agree with the Theory of Evolution.

This also goes hand and hand with a much much older Earth.

Not to mention, light-speed alone disproves a 6,000 year old "created" universe.

It is true we do not know what started it all... but we also don't claim to know.

What we do know is this:

Science bases its knowledge on empirical evidence.

The bible was "written by god?"/ people who barely understood how to make a fire.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#766 Jun 26, 2013
10uhsee wrote:
<quoted text>
I must be missing something here.
What in ID do you teach exactly? Is there a process to "GodDidIt?"
Is there a scientific formula based on the natural order in ID? What exactly would they teach?
You all scream "Teach the controversy" What exactly is this controversy you want taught? I do not see a reason based on the natural order and observable science to say "GodDidIt."
However, everything seems to point to the contrary.
Great points.

Here's what is taught. "Okay class here's what went down. God woke up, was bored, created some human companions. Any Q's? Okay, test tomorrow! Class dismissed."

How about Xtian teaching the great controversy that IS Xtianity and its wild-arsed claims! But Noooooo! Xtians wont do that...oh no...
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#767 Jun 26, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
He also rebuke sinners in public in front of others so they might fear.....
For someone who presents himself on here as such a secular ANTI-God person you sure do like to quote Jesus alot.
Yet you are NOT Jesus, so don't pretend to be like him.

Jesus quotes? Me, hardly - but its called knowing ones enemies. I adore Sun-Tzu. But having once been a faithful and very well-educated in all aspects my Religion Xtian, I already knew them...from the inside out. So that part was/is easy...

And for the millionth time, I'm not anti-God, I'm anti-know it all, I'm more moral than everyone else, and I make shyte up all the time to support my POV sorts of Xtian thiests.(actually any theist of any faith, be it Judaism, or Druidism...et al)

I'd welcome a God, but so far nothing proves one or many exist...least of all the top mono-theistic Religions.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#768 Jun 26, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
Go home and disconnect the gas line. Light a candle, run and look until it explodes. Tell me what you end up with, a Home Depot or a pile of rubble...
Natural order and observable science? LMELAO
Dumbest of the dumbest of analogies...it fails on too many reasons to cite...

But it makes you giggle, huh? Like you just found the secret of the Universe...?

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#769 Jun 26, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
He also rebuke sinners in public in front of others so they might fear.....
For someone who presents himself on here as such a secular ANTI-God person you sure do like to quote Jesus alot.
Yeah... atheists, in general, know more about religion than most religious people do.

I know that may sting... but it is true.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#770 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
" Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.
" Religion" on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800's that "the term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
A typical dictionary definition usually defines "religion," as does the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.), as "[belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; a system grounded in such belief and worship."
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20R...
"The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins."

So do Creationists, and their affiliated organizations, look for the creator of the Creator...? Have to if the above is to be taken seriously...

The many diverse "Real Sciences" are looking as deeply backwards as is possible for the origins, of the origins...and so on...

ID? Stops not at the waters edge, cause it never makes it to the river,'cause it never left the barn! ID never leaves the barn! Cause that barn is Xtian theology! ID cant search past its already determined answer, "Goddidit!"

ID, etc, etc - is as dishonest as the day is long!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Santa Fe, NM

#772 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right? Did you bother to read his side of the story on the link I gave you?
Why do people complain about IDer's not having their work published in actual Scientific Journals, and when then do, it was "snuck in"?
It's called a "Catch-22".
2. This is not a conspiracy theory. I'm sure various statements can verified if anyone wishes to bother to do so:
I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World...
Question 1: Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?
http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan...
1) How else can you get pseudo-scientific mumbo jumgo into a scientific journal.

Fear not. Smart people do actually read those jounals and the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo is quickly identified.
Divine Buzz

San Diego, CA

#773 Jun 27, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right? Did you bother to read his side of the story on the link I gave you?
Why do people complain about IDer's not having their work published in actual Scientific Journals, and when then do, it was "snuck in"?
It's called a "Catch-22".
2. This is not a conspiracy theory. I'm sure various statements can verified if anyone wishes to bother to do so:
I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World...
Question 1: Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?
http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan...
Excerpt:
A strange thing happened in the scientific literature recently. A pair of creationists, who have seemingly legitimate scientific credentials, attempted to publish some creationist assertions in a peer-reviewed journal. Their effort was nearly successful, mostly because they hid their pseudoscience in the middle of the article, surrounded by legitimate scientific discussion of unrelated topics. Luckily, they were caught just in time, and it turned out that they were pretty clumsy. In fact, if they had been just a bit more clever, they might have gotten away with it.

http://ncse.com/rncse/28/3/creationism-slips-...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#774 Jun 27, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
" Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.
" Religion" on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800's that "the term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).
A typical dictionary definition usually defines "religion," as does the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.), as "[belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; a system grounded in such belief and worship."
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20R...
You are apparently unaware of the fact that the originator of the idea of “irreducible complexity” that you refer to also accepted the scientific evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth.

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is.”- Michael J. Behe,(best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms)

You are also apparently unaware of the fact a federal court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) found that…

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur.…Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”

And that…

“…Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.…Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Does God Hate? 17 hr Big Al 139
God has Granted Repentance that Leads to Life -... 18 hr Sheriff Joe 529 9
My Dream 1, part 1 and 2, the meaning? Tue rickpilgrim 1
The People's Lounge (Mar '09) Tue Roadie 4,441
Why should God bless America!? (Dec '15) Tue RiccardoFire 199
According to the Bible, is anal sex between a m... (Oct '10) May 21 religiousnuts 191
News New figures show debt crises are growing across... May 19 nanoanomaly 1