Prove there's a god.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#621151 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>So be it. Why then do we experience a mode where there is no memory? Something must be "shut off". Obviously the sleep state is different from the wake state. Still, my explanation for why we 'have no memory of sleep but retain the sense of being in the present' is very plausible. And still neither of us can say our belief is more plausible than the other.
<quoted text>Again, you can *believe* what you want but don't say that science can ever make a statement that your belief is more likely than consciousness from a quantum source.
This provides no evidence that the brain is or isn't a hardware device that is a "medium" for consciousness.
Again because you have no clue you are qualified to say. pfft.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621152 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say it removes it completely, I said that is it's purpose, and it does a very good job of keeping people honest.
Why would they admit god created the world? There is no evidence for it. And again, why do you set up religion so as to be diametrically opposed to science? If we accept a creator, does that mean we have to stop searching for knowledge?
And you say Science has NO BIAS, and ask why i set up religion to be diametrically opposed to science!!

No wonder you couldnt answer my question, you would have to be honest to do that.

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


The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists). give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[25]

The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621153 May 3, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."[45]
It's not bias when it's supported by evidence, you dolt. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and "ID" with "flat earth" and you have the same sentiment. Facts are facts. You do not have to be biased to accept them.

Hmm. Scientists, who are by definition more knowledgeable when it comes to science, tend to accept evolution, and the billy bobs of the world, who are idiots, tend to not accept evolution. So? Since when is the opinion of the general population a good measure of scientific fact? Let's trust the scientists with our science, not the guy who insists evolution is the DEBIL!

And finally, do you think I even remotely care what you think about my intelligence?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621154 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Snipped for space
Oh.. man. You asked me why chimps still exist if we "evolved from them" (which we did not). We both evolved from a common ancestor, and we are both well adapted to our environment. They still exist because, again, man is not the goal of evolution, and they are doing just fine. It's not like they tried and failed to become men. Evolution does not necessarily trend towards giant brains and the ability to talk, which is why we are still "teaching them to talk." I honestly feel like a lot of the resistance to evolution comes from a visceral gut reaction - an unwillingless to accept that we are related to "hairy, crawling on all fours" animals.

I have told you about "hybrid" ape/men. Or, as close to a hybrid as you can reasonably expect. If you can look at say, erectus, and tell me that it doesn't appear slightly human like and slightly ape like, you are deluding yourself. Big brain, slightly ape like features. Wider pelvis. Etc. And we do not have only apes and only men. There are many, many species that came in between our common ancestor and modern homo sapiens. Look up "timeline of human evolution" if you want to see all of them.

So what if we find out whale legs serve some purpose? Like I have said many times, you can get rid of all the fossils we have ever found and forget about comparative anatomy, and we still have all the evidence we need for common descent in our dna.

And I too, am fine with knowing there are things to learn. Which is why I don't claim to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621155 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh.. man. You asked me why chimps still exist if we "evolved from them" (which we did not). We both evolved from a common ancestor, and we are both well adapted to our environment. They still exist because, again, man is not the goal of evolution, and they are doing just fine. It's not like they tried and failed to become men. Evolution does not necessarily trend towards giant brains and the ability to talk, which is why we are still "teaching them to talk." I honestly feel like a lot of the resistance to evolution comes from a visceral gut reaction - an unwillingless to accept that we are related to "hairy, crawling on all fours" animals.
I have told you about "hybrid" ape/men. Or, as close to a hybrid as you can reasonably expect. If you can look at say, erectus, and tell me that it doesn't appear slightly human like and slightly ape like, you are deluding yourself. Big brain, slightly ape like features. Wider pelvis. Etc. And we do not have only apes and only men. There are many, many species that came in between our common ancestor and modern homo sapiens. Look up "timeline of human evolution" if you want to see all of them.
So what if we find out whale legs serve some purpose? Like I have said many times, you can get rid of all the fossils we have ever found and forget about comparative anatomy, and we still have all the evidence we need for common descent in our dna.
And I too, am fine with knowing there are things to learn. Which is why I don't claim to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
LOL, yeah I asked that. But seriously, I don't need a bio lessen. I actually understand the theory of evolution...don't agree with it at all...but I get it. To be honest, it's just easier to generalize and type the word ape or chimp than to attempt to go through the whole homo series when discussing how we supposedly evolved. Tell you what....you wanna impress me...tell me about that common ancestor that makes us a cousin to a chimp. I'm forever more curious why we constantly hear all the hype about our common ancestor, yet never hear a word about the granddaddy of us all. It would seem to me, with all the scientific evidence floating around out there, somebody would have a clue who and what started the whole ball rolling and how he/she/ it came into existence. What I really wanna know is how, by chance, both a male and female common ancestor just appeared outta nowhere for no good reason at all. What's your take on that?

Oh...and for the record, claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator has nothing to do with having a realization that that is much to learn. just because you know someone doesn't mean you know what they know. Same goes for claiming to have a relationship with God. just sayin :)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621156 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, yeah I asked that. But seriously, I don't need a bio lessen. I actually understand the theory of evolution...don't agree with it at all...but I get it. To be honest, it's just easier to generalize and type the word ape or chimp than to attempt to go through the whole homo series when discussing how we supposedly evolved. Tell you what....you wanna impress me...tell me about that common ancestor that makes us a cousin to a chimp. I'm forever more curious why we constantly hear all the hype about our common ancestor, yet never hear a word about the granddaddy of us all. It would seem to me, with all the scientific evidence floating around out there, somebody would have a clue who and what started the whole ball rolling and how he/she/ it came into existence. What I really wanna know is how, by chance, both a male and female common ancestor just appeared outta nowhere for no good reason at all. What's your take on that?
Oh...and for the record, claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator has nothing to do with having a realization that that is much to learn. just because you know someone doesn't mean you know what they know. Same goes for claiming to have a relationship with God. just sayin :)
Are you asking me for the common ancestor of man and chimp, or our ultimate common ancestor? No one knows the answer to either of those questions. There are several candidates for the man/chimp common ancestor but we don't know for sure, and there are many ways in which life could have started, but we don't know for sure. So? Like I said, fossil evidence is not needed to prove we are related to chimps. Our DNA does that just fine, not to mention several other lines of evidence.

And what do you mean "a male and a female common ancestor appeared for no reason at all?" Common ancestor refers to our common ancestral species, not a specific individual.

Ok. I still consider it suprememly arrogant to claim one has a personal relationship with the creator of the cosmos.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621157 May 3, 2013
who="Truth signed in"]<quoted text>
LOL, yeah I asked that. But seriously, I don't need a bio lessen. I actually understand the theory of evolution...don't agree with it at all...but I get it.
I don't think you would have asked that question if you understood the TOE. Not trying to be a dick, but that question makes no sense. It's one of those "classic creationist misconceptions." It's like asking, if you are here, then why are your parents still alive?

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#621158 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, yeah I asked that. But seriously, I don't need a bio lessen. I actually understand the theory of evolution...don't agree with it at all...but I get it. To be honest, it's just easier to generalize and type the word ape or chimp than to attempt to go through the whole homo series when discussing how we supposedly evolved. Tell you what....you wanna impress me...tell me about that common ancestor that makes us a cousin to a chimp. I'm forever more curious why we constantly hear all the hype about our common ancestor, yet never hear a word about the granddaddy of us all. It would seem to me, with all the scientific evidence floating around out there, somebody would have a clue who and what started the whole ball rolling and how he/she/ it came into existence. What I really wanna know is how, by chance, both a male and female common ancestor just appeared outta nowhere for no good reason at all. What's your take on that?
Oh...and for the record, claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator has nothing to do with having a realization that that is much to learn. just because you know someone doesn't mean you know what they know. Same goes for claiming to have a relationship with God. just sayin :)
Something near or just before Australopithecus is where the split occurred. But the grandfather as you say maybe never clearly identified. It is known that this creature started down the path to becoming human, which in itself exposed a human error in thinking. We surmised a big brain started us down the path, this turned out to be in error.

The path to becoming human was taken quite literally in stride,
It was bipedalism that started the journey. A path we know where it leads but still uncertain where it will go.
Yes we are the end product, but are still evolving though at an imperceptible rate and it is doubtful any major change is left in this path. That is unless a upheaval in our niche happens we will remain pretty much the same. But upheaval brings either extinction or evolution, a gradual change in the Earths or indeed our survival conditions would bring this type fork in the road.
Where one path is death and the other is the change to survive.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621159 May 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Something near or just before Australopithecus is where the split occurred. But the grandfather as you say maybe never clearly identified. It is known that this creature started down the path to becoming human, which in itself exposed a human error in thinking. We surmised a big brain started us down the path, this turned out to be in error.
The path to becoming human was taken quite literally in stride,
It was bipedalism that started the journey. A path we know where it leads but still uncertain where it will go.
Yes we are the end product, but are still evolving though at an imperceptible rate and it is doubtful any major change is left in this path. That is unless a upheaval in our niche happens we will remain pretty much the same. But upheaval brings either extinction or evolution, a gradual change in the Earths or indeed our survival conditions would bring this type fork in the road.
Where one path is death and the other is the change to survive.
I agree that barring a drastic change in our environment we are likely to change very much, but I don't like the use of the term "end product," as it suggests that evolution was "aiming" towards us the whole time.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621160 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you asking me for the common ancestor of man and chimp, or our ultimate common ancestor? No one knows the answer to either of those questions. There are several candidates for the man/chimp common ancestor but we don't know for sure, and there are many ways in which life could have started, but we don't know for sure. So? Like I said, fossil evidence is not needed to prove we are related to chimps. Our DNA does that just fine, not to mention several other lines of evidence.
And what do you mean "a male and a female common ancestor appeared for no reason at all?" Common ancestor refers to our common ancestral species, not a specific individual.
Ok. I still consider it suprememly arrogant to claim one has a personal relationship with the creator of the cosmos.
You do realize we have. 90% genetic similarity with cats, 80% with cows, and 75% with mice...when comparing single nucleotide changes in the DNA, or changes in the sequence of the A,C,G,T code.... Right? So, does that make them common ancestors as well? I mean if you're adamant the DNA is really ALL the evidence we really need. I tend to disagree...I think we need a little more evidence. the idea of having a chimp for a cousin is bad enough...but good grief... Without fossils...now I gotta accept mice as my 3rd cousin once removed. No way dude! I'm drawing the line here!:)

"And what do I mean "a male and a female common ancestor appeared for no reason at all?" Well... Come on now Timmy....I was asking for the granddaddy of us all, chimps, humans, you know...all us cousins. Unless you can prove a male or female could procreate on their own, there had to be a male and female bond to get the whole species started. Granny and Granddaddy... That's who I'm interested in. If science can say I am definitely a cousin to Carli the chimp then surely science must know what happened before planet of the apes.

I don't think it's arrogant at all to have a spiritual connection to God. You're making an assumption on a topic you insist you don't even believe in.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621161 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Crocoduck?! Hell naw, hahaha!!!!
That's what you were asking for, same thing.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621162 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize we have. 90% genetic similarity with cats, 80% with cows, and 75% with mice...when comparing single nucleotide changes in the DNA, or changes in the sequence of the A,C,G,T code.... Right? So, does that make them common ancestors as well? I mean if you're adamant the DNA is really ALL the evidence we really need. I tend to disagree...I think we need a little more evidence. the idea of having a chimp for a cousin is bad enough...but good grief... Without fossils...now I gotta accept mice as my 3rd cousin once removed. No way dude! I'm drawing the line here!:)
"And what do I mean "a male and a female common ancestor appeared for no reason at all?" Well... Come on now Timmy....I was asking for the granddaddy of us all, chimps, humans, you know...all us cousins. Unless you can prove a male or female could procreate on their own, there had to be a male and female bond to get the whole species started. Granny and Granddaddy... That's who I'm interested in. If science can say I am definitely a cousin to Carli the chimp then surely science must know what happened before planet of the apes.
I don't think it's arrogant at all to have a spiritual connection to God. You're making an assumption on a topic you insist you don't even believe in.
Yes, if you go far back enough, we have a common ancestor with the mouse. That is what is implied by the term "common descent." They, however, are not our "common ancestors." I think you are confused about what that term means.

I don't understand what you're asking. You want us to identify, down to the individuals, the exact male/female bond that eventually led to hominids? Really? We can estimate, using dna, when the hominid line split off from the chimp line (approx. 6.5 or 7 mya), but no way are we going to determine the individuals. Maybe their approx location, time period, but that's about it. As I said, there are several candidate species for our common ancestor. I would be lying if I told you we knew for sure which species this was. That's not a "point" against the TOE though, given the massive time scales involved, as well as the fact that the rainforest does not preserve fossils very well, it's not surprising that we don't have the best fossil evidence. And again, we don't need fossil evidence. Dna. Did you read my post about human chromosome number 2 a couple pages back?

I have to believe in something to make conclusions about it? I think it is arrogant to claim a relationship with the creator of the cosmos. You know how the pope says he speaks directly to god and that he is therefore infalliable? Arrogant.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621163 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Trilobites are some of the earliest "kinds" of sea crustaceans and other hard-shelled water creatures.
I don't think you understood the implications of such a question and why it destroys your entire "kind" thing.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#621164 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that barring a drastic change in our environment we are likely to change very much, but I don't like the use of the term "end product," as it suggests that evolution was "aiming" towards us the whole time.
No not exactly, it means we have found an equilibrium in our niche.
Like the crocodile it has nothing to gain by evolving further.
The conditions would have to change for the species to change, we see this has happened when great changes in the Earth occurred, otherwise any evolutionary change was imperceptible in short distances of time, and indeed could only be distinguished over great distances of time. It must indeed be this equilibrium that organisms evolve toward. But evolution never really stops because of the microscopic changes within. We see this also with bacteria and virus etc. But no real macroscopic change because organisms find a place they can function effectively in the environment.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621165 May 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No not exactly, it means we have found an equilibrium in our niche.
Like the crocodile it has nothing to gain by evolving further.
The conditions would have to change for the species to change, we see this has happened when great changes in the Earth occurred, otherwise any evolutionary change was imperceptible in short distances of time, and indeed could only be distinguished over great distances of time. It must indeed be this equilibrium that organisms evolve toward. But evolution never really stops because of the microscopic changes within. We see this also with bacteria and virus etc. But no real macroscopic change because organisms find a place they can function effectively in the environment.
Yep. Btw, meant to say we are not likely to evolve further, not "likely" to.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#621166 May 4, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize we have. 90% genetic similarity with cats, 80% with cows, and 75% with mice...when comparing single nucleotide changes in the DNA, or changes in the sequence of the A,C,G,T code.... Right? So, does that make them common ancestors as well? I mean if you're adamant the DNA is really ALL the evidence we really need. I tend to disagree...I think we need a little more evidence. the idea of having a chimp for a cousin is bad enough...but good grief... Without fossils...now I gotta accept mice as my 3rd cousin once removed. No way dude! I'm drawing the line here!:)
"And what do I mean "a male and a female common ancestor appeared for no reason at all?" Well... Come on now Timmy....I was asking for the granddaddy of us all, chimps, humans, you know...all us cousins. Unless you can prove a male or female could procreate on their own, there had to be a male and female bond to get the whole species started. Granny and Granddaddy... That's who I'm interested in. If science can say I am definitely a cousin to Carli the chimp then surely science must know what happened before planet of the apes.
I don't think it's arrogant at all to have a spiritual connection to God. You're making an assumption on a topic you insist you don't even believe in.
The relation on the tree of life can be very remote and distanced by great strides of time, but understand all vertebrates are related as are all tetrapods. The amazing thing is that all life being from Earth is related by the fact we are made of the same building blocks that became life itself and it became many different forms. Some may say god is the reason , creating all things from the material at hand(Earth) but I leave that suspicion to people like you, and have no faith it was for that reason.
But we in fact are related in some degree to all living things, even if it is but a single line of sequence out of millions in our DNA.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#621167 May 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No not exactly, it means we have found an equilibrium in our niche.
Like the crocodile it has nothing to gain by evolving further.
The conditions would have to change for the species to change, we see this has happened when great changes in the Earth occurred, otherwise any evolutionary change was imperceptible in short distances of time, and indeed could only be distinguished over great distances of time. It must indeed be this equilibrium that organisms evolve toward. But evolution never really stops because of the microscopic changes within. We see this also with bacteria and virus etc. But no real macroscopic change because organisms find a place they can function effectively in the environment.
My cousin was born with 6 fingers on his left hand. You don't want to play video games with him.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621168 May 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No not exactly, it means we have found an equilibrium in our niche.
Like the crocodile it has nothing to gain by evolving further.
The conditions would have to change for the species to change, we see this has happened when great changes in the Earth occurred, otherwise any evolutionary change was imperceptible in short distances of time, and indeed could only be distinguished over great distances of time. It must indeed be this equilibrium that organisms evolve toward. But evolution never really stops because of the microscopic changes within. We see this also with bacteria and virus etc. But no real macroscopic change because organisms find a place they can function effectively in the environment.
Not entirely true, we are still evolving, you can even see it in the earliest photos, our bone structure and stature is different. Hair colors are actually becoming lighter too, which is just strange really, but meh. We are also less hairy as a species than we were not so long ago. As they say, if you watched dinosaurs evolve into birds, you'd still call them dinosaurs.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#621169 May 4, 2013
I agree with Timn17 and Kitten.
I'm in a transitional stage of going from middle age to old age!
There is some Elk type creature (I'll look it up for ya...one day) In northern Canada who's antler's are now so big they get them stuck in bushes and end up dying. Science believe's their antler's have grown so large because of competition, females are more likely to mate with the largest. So this creature is going through a transition. Great to see what nature (as I call it) is going to do now.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#621170 May 4, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No need for apologies. I just simply couldn't understand how you came to that conclusion. I don't have trouble accepting that change is constant in all living things. When I pointed out that EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil...it was somewhat of a joke...a play on words, because inanimate objects are not fossils nor will they ever be...again...I like to keep things a little on the lighter side if I can.
As for wanting to be able "to point to one specific species as being "in between" ape and man as if man is the 'endpoint'", I do believe man is the endpoint. Will we change over time. Of course we will. Do I believe man will, over time, evolve into some kind of alien -like super intelligent being or something completely different than we are now? No, I don't. To say we are the end-product to date, of a chimp, basically, is to say we evolved from a non-speaking, hairy, crawling on all fours primate that is still in existence today. If that transition had occurred, why are their still apes and chimps? Why are we training them to speak sign language and do other tasks that are more human? Why aren't they evolving on their own still? If change and transition occurred that slowly over time, you would not have ape then man. There would have to be a hybrid version of the two at some point in time and we don't see that. Same goes for bird to mammal, mammal to fish. At some point there would have to be fins and legs, wings and legs on a fossil. I realize, science has this big idea that whales are a perfect example because they have vestigial hind legs. Personally, I find this hilarious. Tonsils and adenoids were thought for years to be vestigial organs in humans, but wow...guess what, we finally figured out they have a purpose. Tonsils and adenoids are strategically located near the entrance to the breathing passages where they can catch incoming infections. They 'sample" bacteria and viruses and can become infected themselves. It is thought that they then help form antibodies to those "germs" as part of the body's immune system to resist and fight future infections. Just because we don't know the purpose for hind legs in whales doesn't mean they must have once been weight bearing limbs and that whales actually roamed the earth. It amazes me how we assume fossils of who knows what are the transitional fossil link that proves a whale once walked. What will science do of they ever figure out what those little hind legs are actually used for....the way they figured out the purpose of the tonsils? The thing is Timn...I don't have to have an answer for everything. I'm okay with the idea that there is much to learn and I don't feel the need to make things fit into my little creationist world, unlike the way science and many evolutionists do.
That isn't how it happens.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 9 min Pastor Catcher 47,895
Vote for Euro 2016, free game 10 min Aaron0562 1
White women leaving their white families in dro... (Aug '09) 17 min Colored Silicone 327
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 19 min MUQ2 281,216
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 27 min Pad 646,326
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 1 hr Brian_G 10
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Annaleigh 105,574
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr WasteWater 2,012
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 8 hr oneear69 38,711
More from around the web