By Cal.Short on Sep 3, 2008 | Reply

“as per our Founding Fathers, one should have no bearing on the other.”

Yes, and that is what makes me nervous about having particularly religious people like Palin in power. The impact is sometimes “via the backdoor”: witness, for instance, how a Bush appointee in the Justice department was vetting people, and on how graduates from certain Evangelical-related colleges have been getting into government positions.

I say this as someone who voted for Bush: I am now becoming nervous enough about this that even though I am a free-market supporter, I’m considering voting for the more secular Democrats.

By edward smith on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

Let’s see: the Iraq was is a “task from God”. Does that mean that God wanted us to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children?

Seems odd to me….

By ANN on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply

REMEMBER, separation of church and state. This woman is misinformed. Soooooooo many things wrong her. Task from God…..was it God’s plan to kill innocent people, to have our troops killed and sent home in a body bag? I am at a loss with this whole situation.

By Free Alaska Now on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

Palin is not misinformed. Mormons believe golden plates disappeared into the sky after being viewed by Joseph Smith. Palin thinks the earth is 6000 years old and that humans have been on the earth for 4000 years (they were all killed during the flood). I don’t call such people misinformed. They are informed and believe some things that I don’t believe. Such beliefs are like believing in the easter bunny or santa claus to me. Children believe in Santa Claus and Palin has the right to believe that the earth is 4000 years old and that jesus will appear in the sky and people will start flying through the air being raptured.

By Tom on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

As a secular Democrat, I will be voting for McCain/Palin.

How refreshing it is to be able to vote for someone who actually believes in something!

I have grown weary of voting into office, empty promises.

By flyers4n on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

Tom– in your state of mind you should probably see a shrink–soon!!!!

By tom stauffer on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

I am surfing the net, trying to find out about Sarah Palin, and find you usage of half sentences and ideas unfortunate. Just going by her voting record and policy, you are misrepresenting her past actions. You make it easy for me to read between the lines. Thank you, Tom Stauffer

By Ana on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

Scary to have someone say Iraq is a task from God and is God’s plan. Isnt that what Osama Bin Laden and Muslim extremists say about 9/11?
I hope democrats raise this issue when she comes out of media seclusion and make her explain what is this God’s Iraq task.

By Doug on Sep 8, 2008 | Reply

yes! this woman is nuts..since the bible says vengeance is his and HE will repay….not to mention the commandment thou shalt not kill…and She is Christian huh? lol Politicians have one common goal..to lie, to discract and carry out the New World Order though the Vatican/Rome for Satan himself

By Monty on Sep 8, 2008 | Reply

Sarah Palin appears to be a Godly, Christian woman. It’s not some whacked out extremist view for a Christian to state that God “has a plan”. He does. And he is carrying it out every day. As a Christian fundamentalist– someone who points to the Bible as the true, infallible word of God– I am very pleased that McCain has selected Governor Palin.

With regards to the war in Iraq, it is a horrible consequence that men, women, and children die in war. How is it though that no one sheds a tear for the 4,000 children murdered every day through abortion? We can try and rationalize that a “fetus” is not a human, but each of us started that way.

By Stephen on Sep 10, 2008 | Reply

Monty,

I think you are mistaking “…Godly, Christian woman.” with idiocy. It is an extremist view to believe that the United States of America was “willed” into a self serving conflict in Iraq. To support such a view is near sighted, abuse, and ridiculous.

Furthermore, your “regards” to the War in Iraq has no actual regard or consideration to Iraq. Instead, you merely use it to change the topic of discussion in order to drop a line about how religious fundamentalist are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As a moron, I am assuming that you have no graduate or post graduate education. My suggestion is to go read the opinion of Roe v. Wade. What you should determine is that judicial interpretation and statutory law is a reflection of society’s morals. In some instances the courts will make an interpretation that they feel better reflects morals than does statutory language. Helpful hints: See opinion from Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Please excuse the rest of us if we do not want a potential VP, and by statistics may be the big “P” during her first term, who believes that the Earth is not over 6,000 years old.

This is why the Religious Right, like yourself, have “special” law schools (See Trinity Law School).

By KT on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

She is not a creationist, she was commenting on school curriculum in a debate. Later in her campaign for governor this is written….

“In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.”

By Paul on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

Hi,

As you read this article, can you see the bias coming through? It is so obvious this article was written by a biased, incredulous evolutionist. I am sure you will see the bias coming through in this comment, although I have tried to write as logically as possible.

The HILARIOUS statement that “One primary distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of creationism or Intelligent Design is the former is science and the latter is a belief!” shows this. Blares it in fact.

Science, according to the Macquarie Dictionary, is defined as “The systematic study of humans and their environment based on the deductions and inferences which can be made, and the general laws which can be formulated, from reproducible observations and measurements of events and parameters within the universe. (Macquarie Dictionary)” from http://www.arc.gov.au/general/glossary.htm

Note the words REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS, as well as SYSTEMATIC. Evolution is not a science. You can NOT reproduce the big bang (what the LAC is trying to do, somehow), you can not reproduce the processes of random genetic mutations that cause slime to turn to scientist. That is not observable or repeatable; the definition of science. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology are sciences. Evolution isi philosophy; a belief. A belief is “An unproven assertion based on one or more fundamental assumptions”. Evolution and its intricate, constantly changing philosophy is based on untold and uncounted assumptions; just because I come to a bucket and it has 1 litre of water, and the tap is turned off just as I get there, doesn’t mean the tap has been running for 1 hour, at 1 litre per hour. It could have had .99 litres, and only .01 litres have been added, or the bucket could have been empty, filled at 1 litre per hour, and i got there at exactly 1 hour after the first drop. There are endless possibilities, and the reality is, there are just as many possibilities regarding the creation of the earth, with specific regard to the age of things, and the assumptions we make about their ages based on present data and rates. It is quite ridiculous that some of the things presented as ‘proof’ of evolution in schools today, published in textbooks year after year, have been proved and accepted as fakes. remember the ‘peppered moths’? FAKE: SCAM. Remember the photo of all different animal fetuses, looking remarkably similar?? FAKE. The author of the original publication even confessed in a later interview. And its STILL presented as FACT to our children.

Tell a child that he’s a worthless piece of over-evolved pond scum, that there’s nothing after life and death, that there’s no such thing as morals because there’s no God to hold you accountable, and what do you have? High School Massacres, Mass genocides, Hitler and Stalin were both AVID evolutionists. The Columbine Schoolyard massacre; the killers came to the logical conclusion that follows after evolution; no consequence so lets do it.

I think some of the comments to this article, which are labeling Sarah Palin as an idiot or fundamentalistic terrorist, are biased to the extreme, seeing only what they want to see, and blocking out everything else. For example, flyers4n, your comment to Tom is ridiculous! What evidence can you present from Tom’s perfectly sound and reasonable comment, that he needs to see a shrink. It is perfectly reasonable to want to elect someone who believes in something, as distinct from some wishy washy try-to-please-everybody-but-fail lying politician.

I respect Sarah Palin’s beiefs, and I think those who have trouble with doing that should remember one of the main focuses of modern society; acceptance and not discrimination. That’s something the government and the general public pushes for so hard! And yet people get scared when Sarah Palin says, let’s teach both! Let’s give children the knowledge and understanding of both these theories; they both use the same evidence and simply interpret it in different ways; they both have just as many problems as each other, so why don’t you decide for yourself. Weigh the evidence, do some research, gain knowledge and understanding and wisdom, and then make a decision that determines your own world view. That’s what the education system was all about I thought.

I am quite sure nutty, crazy people would not be running for parliament, and wouldnt be chosen as governer by McCain, if he didn’t think her a suitable, sane selection candidate.

America’s core value as a God-fearing nation is perfectly in line with Sarah Palin’s beliefs. If you don’t believe in God that’s your problem. The way I see it, we have two options, two possibilities. God is real, or he’s not; We believe in God, or we don’t. If God’s not real, and we believe in him, what have we lost? We lead moral, upstanding lives, without getting in trouble with the law (comparitively), and we find closure in death, meaning in life, and passion for Christ.
If God’s not real, and we don’t believe in him, we lead ‘immoral’ lives, with lots of pleasure resulting from a hedonistic or materialistic lifestyle, we lack meaning, passion or closure, we go through the hurt and pain of doing detrimental things which bring temporary pleasure, but suffering and baggage later on. Sure, we have fun, be our own boss, do what we like, and then we die.

But, if God’s real and we don’t believe in Him, we do all those things above, but when we die, we’re doomed because we did not believe in His son, who offered us saving grace and deliverance from sin so we could stay with Him in heaven, by dying on the cross for us. All this offered to us quite clearly before we die. Instead we go to hell, full of ETERNAL torment, suffering, regret and damnation.

If God’s real AND we believe in Him, it’s all sweet! We choose to live a moral life, pleasing to God, believing in his son, Jesus, and when we die, we go to heaven and enjoy eternal happiness. Simple really.

It all depends on what you believe and the decisions we make in this life. Remember, assuming God’s real, we’re the ones that screwed God over in the first place.

I also noticed the comment about McCain’s beliefs; I can not reconcile evolution and God. God’s book he gave us, the Bible directly opposes the whole concept of evolution. There’s a creationist website I think those who are thinking about this whole idea should check out; just search something you’re interested in, and you’ll almost always find some sort of answer. Of course, not every article is going to be entirely correct, but there’s some interesting stuff; stuff you may never know because the secular evolutionary media won’t publish it. Google “Creation on the web” and you’ll find it.

That’s my thoughts anyway. I’m not trying to personally attack of the previous commenters on this page, simply identifying where I feel they have strayed from a logical argument; something I may possibly have done, but I hope this almost semi-article causes you to think about what you really believe and WHY, instead of just condemning other people. Sorry if I’ve offended you.

Paul

By Martin, UK on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

Free Alaska Now… whilst your views that Palin can believe what she likes are spot on, don’t you find it frightening to find creationism advocated as equal to scientific fact by such an influential individual (potentially). I hope for all your sakes she doesn’t get in!

A backward step for America, and no doubt a backward step for the world.

By Martin, UK on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply

Paul, you apologize for causing offence, and I thank you for that, since you’ve caused offence to me (and probably other rationally minded folk)!

During your weighty diatribe, which I dare say is slightly off topic, you put forward incorrect and inflammatory remarks – both of which give me cause to respond.

You suggest that the science of evolution has no “reproducible observations” or “measurements” available to quantify it as science. Even a cursory look into evolution theory will demonstrate that this is the case! Though, you must appreciate first that the process takes a long time, and cannot be reproduced in a dish, like a biology test… the time taken may be too great for your comprehension since your book restricts your view of time to a trifling 6,000 years.

Recent identification of the DNA code adds further support to Darwin’s solid theory. Has your book uncovered any new corroborating evidence lately – evidence that we can ‘reproduce’, ‘observe’ and ‘measure’; all criteria in which you rightly insist upon?

I take particular offence at your comment that supporters of evolution will “tell a child he’s a worthless piece of over-evolved pond scum”. Evolution celebrates the sheer magnitude of chance that we live on this planet, enjoying unique emotions and experiences. I’d be proud to share with a child what a joy it is to be alive, here and now - and not belatedly in a mythical heaven – a heaven where you have to offer countless propitiations and sacrifices to get there, at the fear of burning in hell fire! Is that the way to bring up an innocent child?

You talk of acceptance and teaching both sides of the story, but contradict yourself with the comments: “If God’s not real, and we don’t believe in him, we lead ‘immoral’ lives… we lack meaning… when we die, we’re doomed… full of ETERNAL torment, suffering, regret and damnation.” That doesn’t sound balanced to me. It’s also untrue.

Now, I’m not American, but I understand that you have a secular society at the basis of your constitution… Palin’s sliding creationism into the educational system despite this important fact.

To conclude, I’d like to respond to your question – “If God’s not real, and we believe in him, what have we lost?” Well for starters, you’ve lost reason, free-thought, a child’s inquisitive mind, the values of your constitution, and all the time it’s taken to progress our magnificently advanced primate society!

Martin

P.S. Hitler was a roman catholic, and besides what of all the Pope’s throughout the ages who sentenced whole nations to the sword, to list but one counter example?

By Monty on Sep 12, 2008 | Reply

Stephen,

Why such venom? If you are truly the rational and educated secularist you try to convey yourself to be, then there is no need to lower the conversation and resort to name calling, is there? Just state your case………

The point I’m trying to make is that for true Bible believing Christians, God is the center of our lives. And as foreign as it may sound to someone who doesn’t believe, He is in control of our lives and what is occuring in Iraq. Mrs. Palin was trying to convey just that.

With regards the abortion issue, it strikes a nerve for many people because it ought to. You are correct, it is a reflection of our society’s morals. And we live in a society where we can, on a daily basis, nonchalantly destroy thousands of children created in the image of God out of selfish convenience. It’s truly is a sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, the U.S.A., as great a country as it is has strayed so far from our original moorings in God that our founding fathers held to. There was never an intent to separate church and state. Those words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The intent was for both the government and the citizenry to have a dichotomy, but for both to be accountable to God.

Three years ago, I too was a non-believer but by the grace of God, I came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. I do put my faith in Him and in the Bible, which is God’s word. That’s my foundation. What’s yours?

By johnny on Sep 13, 2008 | Reply

This is to the writer Michael Lang and to others confused on the main issue:

Creationism and evolution are not necessarily alternative to each other. Both theories actually exist and do not disprove the other. It is true evolution was proven in the fossil records(although not gradual as Darwin thought), but many of the physicists and scientists who acknowledge evolution cannot explain the ORIGIN of life, life which stems from earth which stems from the Big Bang and that’s as far back as anyone is able to understand.

Believe me, I can’t stand Palin…she is beyond insane and not very intelligent. But, be careful when discussing these two theories because her belief in creationism (if in fact she is talking about the beginning of the Big Bang)cannnot be disproven and this will give her credibility she doesn’t deserve.

By Hank on Sep 13, 2008 | Reply

Johnny,

I’m pretty sure that Palin’s creationism belief is counter to the big bang theory. When Christians talk of creationism, it is based on the biblical depiction of God’s creating the earth in 6 (literal) days.

From a logical standpoint, if you consider the complexity involved in even a single human cell, it would indeed take much more faith to believe that the entire universe was created from a random reaction of gases, energy, etc., and that the human body evolved from a fish like creature, then it would to put faith in a divine creator. Neither the evolution or big bang theories have proof. They are just what the name says they are - theories. It’s just that we (myself included) were taught these concepts as facts in public schools and creation teachings were supressed.

By johnny on Sep 13, 2008 | Reply

I wouldn’t doubt that Sarah’s belief in creationism is beyond even her own understanding of the theory. Much like her belief in ‘terrorism’ and knowledge of Islam countries is elementary at best.
Point is - We need to focus on what matters - her policies.

Maybe she believes in the 6 days of creation, realize the bible is not meant to be literal. On Day 1 there was no Earth, how then can we understand what this ‘1 day’ concept can mean without a sunrise or sunset. you will be hard pressed to find scientists or Christians who can explain this. Evolution and creationism are theories that can co-exist, so this is an issue that Palin cannot be challenged on.

What everyone needs to worry about is the McCain and Palin terrorism manifestation that is going to fuel future blood shed in the Middle East. Take a look at these links below, the direction we are heading in is too similar to a “Roman Empire” quest to dominate the world and bless them with our beautiful and obviously better form of government (democracy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjkfJiU9wE&feature=bz302

Look at what George Friedman wrote last yr - He was on to something:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2007/0917october.htm

By Jeremy on Sep 14, 2008 | Reply

Same as previos post, just noticed some typo’s. I guess I’m not completely evolved yet.

Hank,

You’re “pretty sure that Palin’s creationism belief is counter to the big bang theory”? Based on what? Based on your limited understanding of what Christion’s belief in creationism? I am a Roman Catholic. As a Catholic we are not compelled to interperert Geneisis literally. It can easily be explained as the author’s poetic explination of the origin of life not to be taken literally. The time frame of 6 days is not literal. I belive in evolution but not Darwin’s gradual theory, which shows huge, flaws and gaps. You can be belive in evolution and still believe that God is the creater. After all there is no way to prove how life began only that there may have been a big bang, that still doesnt explain life. She has merely stated that she believes that the discussion of how life and the world came to be should not be limited to one limited and narrow view. Believe it or not you can believe in a creator and not be crazy as a loon.

By Rob on Sep 14, 2008 | Reply

You mis-characterize evolution in this commentary. Evolution itself makes no claims about the origin of life. Rather, it teaches the adaptation of species over many generations to be come more “fit” with respect to their environment. Further, macro-evolution makes claims that this adaptation can lead to speciation, and the divergence of new species from a common ancestor. The origin of life itself is a different question entirely, though teaching the completely unfounded and unscientific idea that life was created from noting by a divine creator is clearly out of the question.

By Hank on Sep 14, 2008 | Reply

Jeremy,

I am a Christian just as you are and my faith is in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God. I believe it is to be taken literally (i.e. six literal days, Adam and Eve were real persons, etc.). Unless you take the story of man’s fall (into sin) in the Garden of Eden literally, then the rest of the Bible, and the salvation found in Jesus Christ for our sins is really not necessary. As Christians, it is imperative we understand that the Genesis account is not poetry or a writer trying to tell a nice story. It needs to be taken as the truth. I don’t claim to understand everything about God, but that’s why we call it faith. Regardless of what some of us think of ourselves, we are not all knowing and we can’t figure out all things through science. My faith convinces me that we are all created in the image of God and not a result of some evolutionary/radiative speciation theory.

By Rob on Sep 14, 2008 | Reply

Hank,

Perhaps it is true that there are question that science will never be able to answer. Clearly, some questions reside outside of the scientific domain, and there are other areas where nature’s mysteries run so deep we may never fully understand them. However, evolution is not some baseless theory that scientists propose for lack of something better. Rather, evolution is a time-tested theory backed by a preponderance of evidence. Micro-evolution is a directly observed fact, and I fail to see how one could deny its truth. Macro-evolution, by its very nature is difficult to observe directly. However, there is a significant body of evidence in support of this theory. Even given the tremendous sparsity of the fossil record, the examples we do have lend tremendous credence to the validity of macro-evolution as a process for speciation. In short, there may be some things that we can’t figure out through science, but faith should not contradict observed fact or reason backed with significant evidence.

By Last Hussar on Sep 14, 2008 | Reply

Many of the ‘Genesis believers fallacies’ here have been constantly answered elsewhere.

1) Darwin made errors. Yes. No one denies that. Einstein made errors, and disliked the work of Nils Bohr that showed his shortcomings. No-one ever says quantum physics can’t be trusted. Darwin wrote 150 years ago. Yes he made errors, but then he was first. His original discoveries have been refined time and time again, each one tested against the latest knowledge.

2) Testing evolution. Obviously doing it over 20 million years is out if the question, but biologists do as much as they can. Short generation insects have repeatedly demonstrated evolution. In addition new species fit where they are predicted to- evolution does make predictions.

3) Ok they do say physics is wrong (age of the earth etc) but are unable to demonstrate how it should work- it all relies on an undetectable hand of God making constant corrections. eg “the earth is 6000 years old. Many stars are further away from earth than 6000ly, therefore god started the light closer” or sometimes “The speed of light was faster in the past, but we can’t prove it, however you can’t prove we’re wrong ergo we must be right, because if we wasn’t the bible would be wrong- which is impossible”.

4) If the physics is wrong you can’t argue with this post because you can’t read it- your computer wouldn’t work, neither would the telecoms for the internet.

5) How did Noah get the kangaroos back?

By Hank on Sep 15, 2008 | Reply

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”……….Charles Darwin

See Irreducible Complexity

By Barry on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

Despite the fact that Palin leans towards the Bible for the meaning of life, she is a strong, courageous woman who has had to deal with massive family issues while running a State. Now the left wing media and bloggers attack her for one reason - they are frightened of what she has brought to the Conservatives campaign.
As Americans we owe ourselves an attempt to dig out of this political mire where we have two sides that literally despise each other and pour daily vitriol over each other’s representatives. If we cannot even have a sensible debate about the economic, healthcare, foriegn policy, security and regulatory issues rather than this insane dialogue on Palin’s beliefs then there is no hope for whoever gets in as President. Either Obama or McCain will be hated by over 45% of the American public if we keep on going this way. Is this any way to run a railroad?
Take care and try to be POLITE in your conversations!
Cheers
Barry

By MarkM on Sep 20, 2008 | Reply

Kitzmiller v. Dover Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (2005). Pennsylvania US District Court ruled creationism was religion, not science. Creationism in this case was deemed in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Establishment Clause, i.e., the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Palin would not succeed in having creationism taught in public schools. Leave it to the homeschoolers, bible schools, or anyone else, as long as they do not receive any federal or state assistance or funds.

By Alan on Sep 22, 2008 | Reply

Hank,
“I am a Christian just as you are and my faith is in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God.” I believe that the belief that the word of God is literal and true is correct.
However, I think that my literal translation of the bible is a bit different from yours.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)
“It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague “time,” 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.).”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:–age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (…live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague “time period” of unspecified length.

Thats the problem with translations. Most people believe literal translation comes from their particular language translation. If you know anything about languages, you can’t really translate word for word. Much gets lost. Even with reading the Hebrew, we only have a partial understanding of the context from which even greater meaning may be derived.

By Sri on Sep 28, 2008 | Reply

I am not a Christian… so I will :

ask one question… Why is your religion better that only its version of creationism is chosen?

request people to read up on one phrase…. carbon dating

demand explanation of one phenomenon… why do we prefer DNA tests as legally admissible proof when disallowing Jesus sightings as fact or fatwas as a reason to commit crimes?

Oh and btw, I am not against Christianity or any other religion… I just choose to forego the confusion that an ‘absolute interpretation’ or any other oxymoron offers me.

By Andy on Sep 30, 2008 | Reply

The Bible isn’t “the true, infallible word of God.” It’s a series of parables that were written down hundreds of years after the facts (if there were any).

There are some good things in the Bible, items about goodwill to humankind and that sort of thing, but to take the book as pure, substantiated fact is lunacy. Ask any self-professed believer to “Prove It,” and they can’t — and they never will. “Prove it, any of it.”

The debates on this page are silly, because no one here is going to change their opinion. Tell the truth, you’re just killing time at work right now, like me, right…?

By Caroline Oley on Sep 30, 2008 | Reply

“…evolution has been scientifically accepted…FEELINGS ARE NOT FACTS.”???? Does that make feelings any less real?? The rationale behind your arguments is adolescent and ridiculous (at best). The fact that this country allows YOU the opportunity to voice YOUR 2 cents worth in a political commentary format is all the more reason YOU should be receptive to what YOU perceive as unqualified political candidates. YOU should be able to appreciate someone trying to perform a job which they apparently have NO business performing.

By Monty on Sep 30, 2008 | Reply

Andy,

Have you actually ever read the Bible? Not have you heard something said about it here and there, but have you actually picked it up and read it? By what authority or knowledge do you say it’s not true? Did you know that the Bible is the most validated book ever and that there is manuscript evidence that dates back to within only decades of the actual timeframes that the events took place? We too easily take for fact the existence of other historical figures who lived thousands of years ago, but for some reason when it comes to scripture, people become naysayers to the validity of it. The persons in the Bible are historically validated not only in the Bible, but by extra-Biblical texts and archeological evidence. Obviously, none of us were there when these events happened so there is the hurdle of not witnessing these events personally. There are no YouTube videos of any of the miracles that Jesus Christ performed. However, it is a historical fact that each of his apostles who witnessed his resurrection suffered torture, persectution, and imprisonment defending their testimony that He is the Son of God. 11 out of 12 were executed. The question remains is if Christ were a fraud, wouldn’t these apostles have backed off when the sword was put to their throat? If I were one of them and knew he wasn’t real, I certainly would have. Instead, each of them chose death versus backing away from their testimony.

Aside from the fact that the Bible is the truth, if you ask any Christian for proof, most will tell you that the impact that Jesus Christ has had on their lives is proof enough.

By Brad Fregger on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

It is deceitful that you would lump creationism and intelligent design together. They are no more related than atheism and scientology. And, you do this for deceitful reasons, you want to suggest that Palin believes in creationism when the facts seem to show that she is favor of intelligent design.

Don’t you realize that you are saying that everyone who believes in intelligent design doesn’t believe in evolution or the age of the universe. That is extremely misleading, again, deceitful.

The TRUTH is that science has no more idea as to how life began than religion. In fact, recently one of the top scientist’s of the collider said that we have gained about 4% of the knowledge of the universe, and he probably was exaggerating. If this is the truth, then what in the world is wrong with saying there are two theories of how life began, one states, “by accident,” while the other believes that there was an intelligent force behind the beginning of life as we know it.

Again, at this point in our knowledge, either could be the right answer. To suggest that science is closer to the truth only keeps us from discovering what really happened, only hampers the true vision of science to discover how this all began.

It is ignorant beyond belief to limit ourselves to only one possibility … that it happened by accident because that answer feels better to us. That’s as dumb as the guy looking for his keys under the lamp post because that’s where the light is. Wise up!

By Fredrik on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply

We have to stop falling for the trick of the religius right to put creationism and the theory of evolution in the same debate. They are in no way comparable. One is a scientific theory the other is a faith. One is tought in science class, the other belongs in a class about religion or philosphy. They have no business being compared.

A scientific theory is not something pulled out of a hat. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. It has been tested, disected, speculated over, attempted to be disproven in a dynamic process. And science WELCOMES challenges to theories! It makes the theory stronger.
Faith, on the other hand, often does not welcome challenge. In its very nature it cant be tested to be true.

Science is universal. We see the same evidence of evolution in a muslim country as in a catholic one.
Creationism is one explanation chosen by one group of believers. Cross the ocean and another explanation exists. What gives anyone the right to believe that their god is real and others are not?

The big problem is people who choose to believe the religious texts literally. No reasonable person can believe that any text is the literal word of god since anything writen has been filtered through a human being who by our very nature are not completely trustworthy. People always have their own agendas, feelings, and beliefs that colour anything we put on paper.
Just see what happens when you tell a friend something att a party, and it is passed along by word of mouth to different people. As the piece of information you told has passed through a few people it has uneringle changed, by accident, or by choice in the tellers. Events in the bible for example were writen down hundreds of years after they actually took place which makes a literal interpretation inpossible! Add to that the problem of translation from hebrew and even older languages.

Literal belief in the bible or koran for example also makes compromise between people impossible. If you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right you will never be able to come to an agreement or understanding with the person on the other side of the fence who also knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that THEY are right.
This does not lend itself to living i a modern multicultural world! The ability to compromise is the one thing that the world needs, not rigidly locked beliefs.

I welcome religious belief as a philosophical way of explaining the spark the started life on earth but it should not be mixed in with the science of how out planet and our universe actually works.
Science doesnt know the answer to everything but unlike the bible literalists and creationists they dont pretend to. Science learns from mistakes and moves forward. Faith is static. Science is moving closer to giving us more information about the world around us. Creationism made its mind upp a long time ago and has no interest in changing.

My 5 cents
/Fredrik

By Monty on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply

Fredrick,

You are incorrect in your assertion that events in the Bible were written hundreds of years after they took place. They were written within decades, sometimes within the decade of the occurrence of the actual event. Still fresh in the minds of those who experienced them.

Also, the translation issue is a fallacy. Hebrew (Old Testament language) and Greek (New Testament Language)Scholars have translated the earliest manuscripts found of Biblical writings - some dating back to hundreds of years B.C. A word for word comparison of those earliest manuscripts, manuscripts written in an interim time (i.e. ~500 years later), and what we have in our current Bible shows that there is a greater than 99% accuracy in the word count and translation. And the one percent discontinuity is of no consequence (i.e. one manuscript may have “Jesus Christ” written, when a later manuscript may have had “Christ”)

You are right that humans are innately untrustworthy. So is it possible that the scientific community could be persuaded by the allure of research money to conduct tests and identify “findings” so they can get more research money, get published, get famous?

By Simon on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply

The trouble with Biblical in-errancy, is it means accepting that God destroyed thousands of innocents in the first flood. That God discusses how to play with the life of Job with evil powers. That more than one god exists (Genesis is clear on this point).

Most Christians (especially the Bible is inerrant ones) also ignore most of the laws. Wearing clothes of more than one thread, eating pork etc, where Jesus was clear that the old laws should be honored. Come on guys if it is the inerrant word of God start being consistent and obeying it.

Then we have to figure out how a first hand witness to those “miracles of Christ” would turn him in for a mere 20 pieces of silver, perhaps he was short on fish and bread supplies?

After all that we have to accept God placed convincing evidence that the world is old, life evolved, and dinosaurs ruled the world for tens of millions of years, placed the same genetic flaws in humans as other large primates, and then artificially aged the genomes of all primates to make it look like one of these errors occurred 65 million years ago, and then carefully hid any convincing proof of his own existence for reasons that are unclear.

Such a vindictive, destructive, and elusive God would seem worthy only of contempt and fear. Me thinks they haven’t read the Bible carefully enough.

By Monty on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply

To Simon:

Let me address your assertions individually. Their is one fault in your description of God destroying thousands of “innocents” during the first flood. The Bible is clear that there is no one righteous in the eyes of God and the only reason you and I are here able to debate this point is because of his soverign mercy to allow us to do so. There were no “innocents” who died during the flood.

You are correct that Jesus did uphold the Old Testament laws - to the letter. But what you are leaving out is the fact that through his perfect fulfillment of the Law, we are set free from it. It is a clear teaching in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul writes that “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Perhaps we all need to read the Bible a little more carefully.

Finally, you are correct, God should be feared. A healthy fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. It’s when people forget Him and supress that feeling deep in our pit of their being that tells us we will some day have to answer for how we live our lives, that’s when we may be in for a very rude awakening if we don’t right the ship.

By Andy on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

Monty,

I have indeed read the Bible, friend. I was raised Roman Catholic, went to church every week until my late teens (blame my guilt-inducing mother for that one), was confirmed, the whole nine. I’ve been through all that stuff, and I’ve since dismissed every bit of it entirely. Never going back, either, never.

With absolutely NO conclusive physical proof that any of those so-called miracles ever really took place, it’s amazing that the sham of organized religion is as powerful as it is. People will always believe what they’re told, I guess, and they’ll try to justify that foolishness by saying that other manuscripts from that time period back it up. Well hey, if that’s all it takes, I might write my own Bible and a bunch of other books that confirm the “facts” of my ridiculous religion. (L. Ron Hubbard, you’re Suspect #1.) Do you know how rich I could be?

That said, as aforementioned, I don’t think the Bible is completely without merit. I’m glad people glean strength and morals from it, and if that makes folks nicer and, as a result, the world a nicer place, I’m all for faith. But thinking that even a sliver of the Bible is factual, well, there’s just nothing to back any of it up. When people damn things like homosexuality based on what The Good Book supposedly says, I feel physically ill.

And there are other misleading Bible issues, too, like the Apocrypha. Somebody once upon a time decided that they didn’t want to believe in the WHOLE Bible, so they picked & chose their own version and went with it. How utterly nonsensical! If you’re gonna believe in something blindly, heck, I say go all the way.

By alex on Oct 4, 2008 | Reply

michael lang you are a moron.

Creationism is NOT the belief that a deity created everything.. after all, most theists worldwide accept the current scientific consensus of evolution theory in it’s entirety and also believe in a Creator/God. (THEY ARE NOT CREATIONISTS.)

and like someone previously commented, “feelings” are no less real than principles that guide physical phenomena, and no less important. there is nothing wrong with McCain’s statements and your pathetic attempt to paint him as a creationist is only revelation of your own severe ignorance and misunderstanding of the topic you are attempting to address.

you are a complete moron with a level of ignorance no less than that of creationists.

By Monty on Oct 4, 2008 | Reply

Andy,

I am really sorry if I offended you. I just feel strongly about this.

I, like you, feel that much of “organized religion” is a sham. Jesus even challenged the Pharisees on this point calling them whitewashed on the outside, but inside being nothing but dead men’s bones. The point I’m trying to make is that the outward religiosity doesn’t mean a thing……..it’s where you’re heart is.

I too was raised Roman Catholic. I did the church thing, communion, etc. However, for 38 years I was without God in my life. I accepted Jesus as my personal savior after someone caring posed this question to me – “What would you say to God if you were in front of Him right now and he asked why he should let you into heaven”. I couldn’t come up with a reason. The fact that I worked hard, loved my family, and wasn’t a thief or a murderer wasn’t good enough either. I look fine when compared to man, but compared to God, I don’t measure up. The whole “being saved” terminology sounded bizarre to me 3 years ago, but it is a biblical term. And Christ has changed my life. And I believe the Bible is God’s revelation to us about Himself and the plan for our salvation.

Out of concern for a fellow human being, I pose the same question to you, Andy. We all have an eternal destiny and it is in either one of two places. Are you ready to be in front of God make the case for yourself without Christ?

By Randy on Oct 5, 2008 | Reply

It really doesn’t sound like much of you (with the exception of Paul), have really given this any real thoughl. Do I believe in creationism? Maybe… or not sure. However, I have thought a lot about this subject (eveolution vs creationism, and I could maybe believe, that if we were perhaps talking about, not the creation of man’s body, but the creation of his soul, yes I could conceive of creationism. Tough to argue that one, isn’t it? That those neanderthals we read about may have had about as much in common with us as chimpanzees. (Are anthopologists still looking for the “missing” link?? Hmmm..).

Also, I know as much about evolution as any layman…I’ve been a science nut all my life. But, I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus. And, yes, though I do not take all the bible teachingss and scriptures, literally, I do believe they were written by people who truly experienced Jesus’and God’s works..and wrote about them.. and what a profound impact it must have had on them, and to those who read their writings.

Now having said this, don’t you think it’s conceivable that God (for whom, ..” a thousand years is but a day”..which is 6,000 years in God’s time..quite a long time for Him to work on one project), could have used “evolution”, and the millions of years in between, to “create” man? A litttle “push” here, a little “push” there and wa la… Adam. So, unlike Carl Sagan (a man I admired and still do) and many other “scientists” like him (maybe like you?), who seem to think that science and evolution have disproved the existence of God’s work…. my beliefs are far from their self-centered thought processes.

I don’t have much use for our mainstream religions. They are supposed to be a way to help guide us, not indoctrinate us, as many of them have. But there are many good men in the “church” who are helping people get started in saving their souls. I tend to read the bible and interpret it myself. And with God’s help, hopefully experience, what i am seeking some day..sounds like some of you doing the same…God Bless!

By G on Oct 17, 2008 | Reply

Sure, but Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not part of the education system! People like Sarah Palin are still living in the Middle Age, unbelieving!

By Laura on Oct 20, 2008 | Reply

Hello All,

First of all, great job to everyone on here! I’m really proud of how y’all have all kept pretty clean mouths and heads. Most of the time emotionalism really takes over when issues like these are discussed.

Randy, you posed the question if ‘a thousand years is as a day’ why can’t the six days of creation be considered 6,000 years instead of a literal week. If you look at the context of that phrase it goes on to say ‘and a day is as a thousand years.’ So it just cancels that out. What this phrase really means is that God is outside of time, because he created time. It also was not meant to be a critique on the six days of Creation. Another question about the 24-hour six day creation is the meaning of the Hebrew Yom. Yom can mean a 24-hour day, the portion of daylight in a day, a certain time in hisory or an uncertain amount of time. However, every time the words first, second, third (etc.) and evening, or morning, are used with the word ‘yom’ it always means a regular 24-hour day (as is done in Genesis 1). So if these days are literal, than God couldn’t have created things over millions of years (not because He doesn’t have that power but because He said that he didn’t).
The Random House Dictionary defines religion as ‘A set of beliefs concerning the nature, cause, and purpose of this universe.’ I believe that this describes evolution to a ‘T’. I should also point out that there is a huge difference between adaptation and variation vs. evolution. Creatioinists accept A&V; it’s proven by observational science. We can observe dogs changing within their created kind i.e. the dog family, and we can observe bacteria adapting to their environments, but this is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. There is not a single example of an adaptation adding new information to the genome which is what would be needed to change fish into tetrapods. All observable ‘proofs’ of evolution fall under this category. Have you ever noticed that both evolutionist and creationists agree on the laws of chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.? It’s only when we begin talking about origins that there is controversy, and that’s because none of us can observe what has happened in the past. Both evolutionists and creationists can interpret the fossil record in a way that fits their theories because they have pre-committments to those theories. There’s no way to prove 100% who is really right because no one was there to observe what really happened.
I believe in Creationism, and the Bible; however I support the principle of religious freedom which our Founding Fathers set forth: the right to believe in any religion without persecution from the State or National government. I believe that both Creationism and Evolution should be taught in schools; teachers should show the facts and the theories to the children and let them examine it for themselves. I really think that this would re-birth a love for learning if children knew that these theories were still open to discussion. I am still a student and therefore can quite capable of making this judgment. God Bless all of you (even those of you who don’t believe in Him!)

Laura

By John in Texas on Oct 24, 2008 | Reply

We need to get back to a scientific challenge to make the US what it once was. Extremists do not belong in any political system. Extremists Islamics are ruining the politics of the middle east, and having politcal extremists like Bush, have eroded our standing in the world. Palin would continue to drive us down.

Ussher (SP?) was the one who calculated the world to be 6000 years old. In the 1600s.

I would rather have an Amish VP, as they won’t tell me I am going to Hell for not believing that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed.

By Robert UK on Oct 24, 2008 | Reply

I came across this article linked form a British discussion group, and I have not seen this Lang report before.

The second major issue has been covered in other comments. It has been noted, for example, that Lang’s approach to evolution and creation shows that he is obviously committed to belief in evolution.

One comment poster suggested that another had no graduate or post-graduate training - “As a moron, I am assuming that you have no graduate or post graduate education. My suggestion is to go read the opinion of Roe v. Wade.”

One of the reasons why, to quote one book title, evolution has been called “a theory in crisis”, is because very highly qualified scientists, in every field of science (including those trained in “evolutionary biology”) have found that the scientific evidence is stacked AGAINST evolution. The more we learn, the more we find that evolution lacks scientific credibility. However, it is an essential plank in the floor to make atheism respectable. (And Hitler may have been “on the books” as a Roman CAtholic, but his personal commitment to evolution drove much of his thinking, and led to the Holocaust as well as many other evils. But he was elected by a small margin to deliver change, and he did succeed in bringing economic prosperity to Germany.)

Intelligent Design is the meeting place of both Christians (who may be creationsists as well) and atheists who find evolution to be discredited by the facts but do not take that step of religious belief.

Young earth creationists include many of the greatest scientists of the past 1,000 years (http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm). They find that there is no conflict between the established facts of science, shorn of various theories, and a Biblical concept of creation. And it is interesting that Russell Humphries used a young earth creation model of the solar system to account for measured planetary magnetic fields. From this he made predictions about Neptune and Uranus, which were very different from what anyone else predicted, but were totally proved by Voyager 2. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

But to return to the politics. If we want to train the best possible scientists, we must never shield them from the kind of training which they would get from being allowed to compare both evolution and creation in the science lesson. While both are based on a belief system, what is relevant to the science class is consideration of the facts of science and discussion of these facts. The way that various bodies scream against allowing any challenge to evolution could be seen as suggesting that they know that the facts of science are stacked against evolution, and that the only way to preserve evolution from challenge is to stifle scientific debate.

By Ben Robinson on Nov 4, 2008 | Reply

Can all the utterly deluded, brain-dead religious assholes posting here fuck off so we can have an intelligent conversation about this half-wit that could become one of most powerful people in the world shortly?

Evolution is not random, evolution does not need to be witnessed first hand to be tested (in the same way police forces do not need to see an actual murder to pin a conviction). Evolution is testable definable, FALSIFIABLE and is science.

Creationism is made up bullshit that cannot be FALSIFIED and therefore is not fit for time-wasting discussion. Not only is creationism falsifiable it has been FALSIFIED many times, not least of which being the many different cross-checked and correlating methods which pin the age of the earth at WELL OVER 6000 years.

Evolution also has nothing to do with the big bang, so stop mentioning them in the same breath. It has nothing to do with the LHC. The big bang and the evolution of life on our planet are seperated by some 8 billion years.

Please, just all of you creationists fuck off back under your rock and sit there, not evolving and burying your pinheaeds in the sand because you don’t want your petty, paltry belief system torn down in front of you.

Ben

By RonH on Jan 18, 2009 | Reply

Wow? We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq? Where do you get this stuff? Check your facts before you run your mouth. This like saying 97% of all statististics are made up.

By buy levitra without prescription on Oct 26, 2009 | Reply

damn imitate seek biodiversity apex jagat cornishrbkc vicious encourage vfrfjdr christen factual

By Valium no rx on Oct 28, 2009 | Reply

malta innovus kundanbaug accredited belco virtually poor coalitions menu thankfully polymers

By Ambien no rx on Oct 29, 2009 | Reply

eestart designers insulin logbidder gehry ground liaison kjhnus spearheading forge hasp

By Pharma660 on Oct 31, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra

By Pharmg386 on Oct 31, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site!

By Pharmd549 on Oct 31, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharmd446 on Oct 31, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharme302 on Oct 31, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharme20 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra

By Pharme233 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site!

By Pharmg210 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharme954 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharmg834 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharmg728 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra

By Pharma328 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site!

By Pharmd745 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharme32 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By Pharmk787 on Nov 9, 2009 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra , cheap viagra ,

By chaycedozi on Nov 17, 2009 | Reply

articles recent partially expected according trends news long [url=http://www.nbclosangeles.com]potential warm environmental generation[/url] http://www.websterclub.org

By abercrombie fitch Tees on Nov 28, 2009 | Reply

The report says lack of water in the future may result in several problems. links of london charms It may increase health problems. links of london charm Lack of water often means drinking waters not safe. links of london Sweetie Bracelets Mr. Engelman says there are problems all over the world because of diseases, links london Sweetie Bracelet such as cholera, which are carried in water. links of london Bracelets Lack of water may also result in more international conflict. links london Bracelet Countries may have to compete for water in the future. links of london Necklaces Some countries now get sixty percent of their fresh water from other countries. links london Necklace This is true of Egypt, the Netherlands, Cambodia, Syria, Sudan, and Iraq. links of london friendship bracelets And the report says lack of water would affect the ability of developing to improve their economies. links london friendship bracelet This is because new industries often need a large amount of water when they are beginning links of london Sweetie Watches

By liquid nolvadex tamoxifen citrate on Apr 5, 2010 | Reply

Hi piplavodart this Wiki

By neurontin dide effects on Apr 7, 2010 | Reply

Hi piplскачать this Wiki

By Buy levitra online canada on Apr 9, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipl z d ijrt jn dfc !!!!

By Buy levitra on Apr 9, 2010 | Reply

Hisd;fl 79 weef !!!!

By viagra on Apr 12, 2010 | Reply

Buy viagra online
Hisd;fl 79 weef !!!!

By viagra on Apr 14, 2010 | Reply

789 comprar viagra barata
Hisd;fl 79 weef !!!!

By viagra on Apr 15, 2010 | Reply

789 comprar viagra barata
Hisd;fl 79 weef !!!!

By viagra on Apr 18, 2010 | Reply

dfsewe <a href=”http://buy-viagra-generic.yolasite.com/#viagra”buy viagra genericewrwer er23r 2r22

By Pharmc24 on Apr 26, 2010 | Reply

Hello! deeffeg interesting deeffeg site!

By Pharmc958 on Apr 26, 2010 | Reply

Very nice site! cheap viagra

By Pharmd188 on Apr 26, 2010 | Reply

Very nice site!

By phentermine on Apr 28, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
phentermine ,

By viagra on Apr 29, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
viagra ,

By Uprima costi viagra on Apr 29, 2010 | Reply

ed viagra rt899 ertedr rg

By Uprima costi viagra on Apr 29, 2010 | Reply

ed viagra genova rt899 ertedr rg

By costi viagra on Apr 30, 2010 | Reply

ed viagra rt899 ertedr rg

By Levitra on Apr 30, 2010 | Reply

ed Levitra farmacia rt899 ertedr rg

By viagra on Apr 30, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
viagra ,

By levitra on Apr 30, 2010 | Reply

ed levitra farmacia rt899 ertedr rg

By Special offer buy viagra online on May 1, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfOrder viagra online no rx prescription. Special offer buy viagra online! rdgsdfgdfvd

By Buy Clomid on May 1, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfBuy Clomid Online rdgsdfgdfvdsdfsdg

By Cytotec online on May 1, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfBuy Cytotec online rdgsdfgdfvdsdfsdg

By kamagra on May 2, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfBuy kamagra online rdgsdfgdfvdsdfsdg

By viagra on May 4, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
viagra ,

By viagra on May 4, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
viagra ,

By Buy lipitor on May 4, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfrsBuy generic lipitor,7532 if ewjdnxcs

By genaric lipitor on May 4, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfrsbuy lipitor save index,7532 if ewjdnxcs

By bontril actos flomax index php on May 4, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfrsdirections fro taking flomax,7532 if ewjdnxcs

By flomax cheap on May 4, 2010 | Reply

dfvdfrsflomax and floppy iris,7532 if ewjdnxcs

By generico del viagra on May 5, 2010 | Reply

good generico del viagra,online

By viagra on May 6, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
viagra ,

By viagra on May 6, 2010 | Reply

Hello!
viagra ,

By seolace on May 6, 2010 | Reply

Nice post, thanks for writing!

By generico del viagra on May 6, 2010 | Reply

good generico viagra,online

By lee haney youtube on May 8, 2010 | Reply

fandom music videos kimberley video pancake mines utube adios video.

By ethiopia youtube on May 8, 2010 | Reply

drum video gospel keynotes yu tube madonna 2bbottle video mashy videos.

By indeo video on May 8, 2010 | Reply

flyboys u tube malika video clip fud videotex labradors video.

By alemayehu eshete video on May 9, 2010 | Reply

mery video miss kettlewell u tube funney videos kuk fitte video.

By tympanoplasty mastoidectomy video on May 9, 2010 | Reply

cedric diggory video mizrahi video hipp vidoe heinzman music video.

By critter gitters yu tube on May 9, 2010 | Reply

bill haast video heifetz video meditation yu tube laurie hibberd video.

By human footprint utube on May 9, 2010 | Reply

foli video donua video hoob videos mr hands video.

By mark millon vidoe on May 9, 2010 | Reply

poodle grooming video kremlin video meerkat vidoe justine video.

By video depositions jobs on May 9, 2010 | Reply

memorial video double ender video mpeg video converter hayer videos.

By icebox 3gp video on May 9, 2010 | Reply

plantar fasciitis vidoe eriz video hieroglyphics videos inuyasha kanna video.

By gunshots u tube on May 9, 2010 | Reply

longing videos inauguration streaming video driving video ila video.

By gambling videos on May 9, 2010 | Reply

maxell video tapes includes recent videos leathered up vidoe mauritian videos.

By college dorm video on May 9, 2010 | Reply

nackid ladys videos acetabularia vidoe musco video codes hemn video.

By marcha utube on May 10, 2010 | Reply

saiyuki gunlock video abdelhalim hafed videos discussion video albanian video music.

By labor birth videos on May 10, 2010 | Reply

keyra youtube musical video lemans x5 video loh video.

By utube dumbass luigi on May 10, 2010 | Reply

skeleton marionette video montevideo bus musculoskeletal video dysprosody video.

By tracy kolis video on May 10, 2010 | Reply

maquiladoras videos kemnay video dan evensen video hellfire missile video.

By inaftineCon on May 11, 2010 | Reply

dsgg Comprare viagra online dsfgdfgsg

By viagra online on May 12, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipls, Comprare viagra online folpomdrb nsdkf

By Viagra online firenze on May 12, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipls uyi ui i ,viagra online folpomdrb nsdkfi u yi ui

By Buy viagra on May 16, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipls uyi ui i ,Buy viagra pills folpomdrb nsdkfi u yi ui

By viagra on May 16, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipls uyi ui i ,Viagra in canada folpomdrb nsdkfi u yi ui

By about viagra pill on May 16, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipls uyi ui i ,before viagra folpomdrb nsdkfi u yi ui

By diamontina on May 23, 2010 | Reply

societies president extinctions running issue impact beginning

By Online casino games on May 30, 2010 | Reply

sweet not sure tho

By strattera online on Jun 1, 2010 | Reply

Wow! Thank u! I always wanted to write in my page something like that. Can I take part of ur text to my journal?

By rolex on Jun 9, 2010 | Reply

replica watch

By film online on Jun 16, 2010 | Reply

Hi pipls uyi ui i !!!! я ебу ))

By oZLpmwD on Jun 23, 2010 | Reply

rAlpRwcC

By buy wellbutrin sr on Jun 23, 2010 | Reply

happpy to see that! yes

By Alexxus on Jun 23, 2010 | Reply

doors.txt;10

By buy wellbutrin sr no prescription on Jun 24, 2010 | Reply

good one i luv it

By Viagra gratuit mail info on Jun 25, 2010 | Reply

That was cool canada achat viagra

By replica bags on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply

Designer Replica Handbags

By Nike Air Jordans on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply

Thanks for this article. It gives me new spirit to continue my blogging journey.

By how to buy Lexapro on-line on Jul 1, 2010 | Reply

Riudd ) site coodfdsl !!!!!! sd

By mooguetop on Jul 2, 2010 | Reply

Top quality medications [url=http://posterous.com/people/5BhBm0UhVsTn]order actonel 35 mg[/url]

By Erroretaiva on Jul 2, 2010 | Reply

Medikamente von hoher Qualitдt [url=http://posterous.com/people/5BhBm0PwIDCh]kamagra online 100mg[/url]

By Fourretatty on Jul 2, 2010 | Reply

Medikamente von hoher Qualitat [url=http://posterous.com/people/5Bhxqa4SBClX]tamiflu online rezeptfrei verkaufen[/url]

By Woonsecic on Jul 3, 2010 | Reply

24/7/365 customer support [url=http://posterous.com/people/5BhFcy7Mq6pH]good weight loss pills reviews[/url]

By online zithromax prescriptions on Jul 5, 2010 | Reply

You d better try this one taking zithromax with alcohol

By dkny watch on Jul 5, 2010 | Reply

designer louis vuitton handbags

By Dinlypodolley on Jul 7, 2010 | Reply

100% satisfaction guarantee [url=http://posterous.com/people/5BhGvpNzUjIt]Cipro 500mg tabs[/url]

By payday today on Jul 8, 2010 | Reply

Hi all

Im new to the site. really looking forward to meeting new people, seeing what they have to say and just really chilling on some social network other than facebook. bleh. like i said, i am me, now who are you?

Take care, John from [url=http://www.onlinepaydaytoday.net]Online Payday Today[/url]!

By XdwvOh on Jul 8, 2010 | Reply

OcCWNNEV

By HapImpodo on Jul 8, 2010 | Reply

Best weight loss pills reviews [url=http://www.webjam.com/lostweight]weight loss programs[/url]

By HapImpodo on Jul 8, 2010 | Reply

Rrescription weight loss pills [url=http://forums.quark.com/members/Can-lose-weight-_2D00_-Eating-healthy-to-lose-weight.aspx]effective weight loss tips[/url]

By alcohol mark r on Jul 9, 2010 | Reply

Found this one estradiol en ni as

By omega watch on Jul 9, 2010 | Reply

discount louis vuitton handbags

By HapImpodo on Jul 9, 2010 | Reply

Moneyback guarantee [url=http://forums.quark.com/members/Can-lose-weight-_2D00_-Eating-healthy-to-lose-weight.aspx]best weight loss pills reviews[/url]

By business hosting services on Jul 9, 2010 | Reply

wow wow canine prednisone labored breathing please

By graicisseme on Jul 12, 2010 | Reply

Effective weight loss drugs reviews [url=http://posterous.com/people/5BchkblIpUOd]effective weight loss for women[/url]

By Allonsoto on Jul 13, 2010 | Reply

Best weight loss pills reviews [url=http://posterous.com/people/4wERQwbSZIqd]fast effective weight loss[/url]

By replica watches on Jul 13, 2010 | Reply

hublot watches replica watches love watches

By sugardvd on Jul 14, 2010 | Reply

thank you very much for that interesting thought, i must admit that i did not know that before.

By fake bags on Jul 16, 2010 | Reply

fake omega

By replica handbags on Jul 18, 2010 | Reply

gucci handbags

By buy kamagra online on Jul 18, 2010 | Reply

Forum u”ber deutsche Miniaturpferde Foren-U”bersicht !!!

By why no antacids with zithromax on Jul 19, 2010 | Reply

Thanx Lot On zithromax tablets please zithromax

By buy ventolin from canada on Jul 20, 2010 | Reply

Thank u for ur help!

By Replica Handbags on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

gucci replica handbags

By viagra online_1 on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

Forum u”ber deutsche Miniaturpferde kamagra_1 Foren-U”bersicht !!!

By viagra online on Jul 22, 2010 | Reply

Forum u”ber deutsche Miniaturpferde buy viagra online Foren-U”bersicht !!!

By viagra on Jul 22, 2010 | Reply

Forum u”ber deutsche Miniaturpferde buy viagra online Foren-U”bersicht !!!

By where to get abilify on Jul 23, 2010 | Reply

im a serial commenter

By Pozycjonowanie - - - - on Jul 25, 2010 | Reply

While the Komperdell C3 Airs

By Vacheron Constantin Replica Watches on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

Replica Patek Philippe Watches

By online viagra order on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

Hello, thanx for your viagra online where to buy viagra safe it was really helpful!!

By viagra find sites search computer on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

Hello, thanx for your viagra online honest place to buy viagra it was really helpful!!

By mQAJrYR on Jul 27, 2010 | Reply

YjBKlFj

By purchase propecia on Jul 28, 2010 | Reply

Hi there Fred, thanks for the comment