Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

neal · 02-12-09 7:51 am

Today is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. This year is the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, with its groundbreaking explication of evolutionary theory. I recently read that book along with his Descent of Man. He was very upfront about the arguments against his theories and discoveries even going so far as to devote whole sections of the book to methodically explore the problems. If only believers were as honest as Darwin.

elaine · 02-12-09 5:33 pm

He was also a humble man, according to this writer. Something Darwin Didn't Know By Rick Weiss Thursday, February 12, 2009; Charles Darwin was nothing if not methodical. When the time came to consider marriage, he divided a sheet of paper into two sections, "Marry" and "Not Marry." Under the first heading he noted: "a friend in old age . . . better than a dog anyhow." In the second he tallied counterarguments: "perhaps quarreling," he fretted, and "less money for books." Darwin's commitment to weighing the facts, even when the topic was an emotional one, would serve competing advocates of science and religion well as the world celebrates the great naturalist's 200th birthday today and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his "On the Origin of Species," with its groundbreaking explication of evolutionary theory. While Darwin himself never took his findings as definitive evidence against the existence of God, many people of faith have read that conclusion into his work. As a result, the man who first grasped biology's most unifying concept is today widely demonized as an enemy of the church, even as many scientists and others make a similar mistake and invoke Darwin in their rejection of everything theological. Darwin was a mostly Anglican biblical literalist when he set sail on his famed voyage aboard the Beagle. Like many Americans today, he believed that God created the world as it is, with all its countless species intact from the start. But Darwin's studies of rocks and fossils opened his eyes to the immensity of geologic time. And his keen observation of life's variations and adaptations sowed the seeds of his eventual revelation that mutation and natural selection, acting on simpler forms of life, could account for all biological diversity. Darwin's basic insight threatened some conventional religious beliefs, of course. If we humans shared a common ancestry with apes -- and if we got here by dint of the same trial-and-error slog as every other species on Earth -- then so much for our being God's favorites, lovingly crafted in his image. And, yes, over time Darwin rejected a literal reading of the Bible, concluding that, as a history text, it was "no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." But Darwin also recognized that his vaunted theory of evolution was dumb on the all-important question of creation -- the mystery of what set the universe in motion and what force or forces launched life on its magnificent, ever-branching trajectory. Was that God's work? Might He yet exist? As with matrimony, Darwin rigorously considered the matter. On the positive side, it certainly felt like something divine was afoot. But he appreciated that this was a subjective and perhaps untrustworthy measure. The "immense amount of suffering through the world" -- not least of which his own, highlighted by the death of his 10-year-old daughter -- argued against a benevolent creator, he wrote (with Facebook-like fanaticism, he maintained a correspondence with some 2,000 friends, including 200 clergymen). At the same time, he hedged, it seemed foolish to reject the assertions of so many intellectually "able men" who "fully believed in God." In the end, he did what any reasonable person might do: He punted. "The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect," Darwin concluded. Do heaven and hell exist, and does eternal life follow death? "Every man," he wrote, "must judge for himself, between conflicting vague probabilities." Darwin's humility in the face of insufficient evidence -- his willingness to say "I don't know" -- is as important a lesson as any to be found in biology texts today. This is not about "teaching the controversy" -- Darwin had a slam-dunk in his explanation of the evolution of species, including humans, and every modern test of evolutionary theory has only strengthened his conclusions. But he also knew there is plenty of room for God at the top, upstream of the business of biology. Soldiers in today's culture wars, whether in black collars or white lab coats, could take a tip from Darwin on his birthday bicentennial. He loved the natural world, "most beautiful and most wonderful." And he knew enough to not pick fights over what he did not know. The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. (Washington Post, 12 Feb.)

bob_2 · 02-12-09 9:27 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote? By Tom Willis Everywhere the subject of origins is discussed, evolutionists routinely, yea, systematically, denounce creationists as some combination of stupid, ignorant, and... dangerous. If we recall there are two major methods men make momentous decisions: empirical and theoretical. I intend to show in a brief space that belief in evolution requires, at minimum, deep delusion allowing one to believe, or pretend to believe, in a manifestly impossible historical scenario. And it leads, both empirically and theoretically, to grotesquely harmful results in every society in which evolutionists are allowed to have a major influence, including our own. Empirical Evidence That Evolutionists Should Be Denied The Vote Evolutionism was/is the apologetic foundation for the faith of predatory capitalism, Germany in WWI, the USSR (from 1918 to this day), NAZI Germany, Fascism in other European countries, and Socialism in all of Eastern Europe beginning about 1945. It was also a major justification in the defense of slavery in the 1800's against Christian opponents. In those nations evolutionist, anti-Christian, anti-creationists killed more people, from the late 1800's to today, than all the wars combined for the last 2000 years. Evolution formed the apologetic framework for justifying the harshest of cruelties during this period as well. This is not to say that evolution is the only excuse for human cruelty, merely that a logically consistent pursuit of evolutionary theory has been used to justify atrocious crimes on the grandest scale in human history. Obviously one might argue that the grand scale was enabled largely by modern technology. True enough, but the technology did not kill anyone, nor did it have any motive to do so. The motive and the killing was done by Homo Sapiens, the technology was only a tool. Theoretical Evidence Evolution is a belief that the Origin of Man was initiated by genetic copying errors in single-celled creatures. These random events purportedly were mostly harmful, usually killing the hapless recipient. But they occasionally conferred a minor benefit to the offspring. "Mother Nature," red with tooth and claw, aided the "most fit" of each generation to kill off the less fit (or the less fit were simply more likely to perish). This process, long continued, we are confidently assured, resulted in the initial one-celled critters being transformed into creatures that design and build airplanes and computers, of course, requiring millions of years. The story is quite amusing, and many seem to actually believe it. We are interested here in two ideas. 1. Would an informed (not necessarily highly credentialed, or even "well read," just modest grammar school education or above), and truly sane person, believe this story? 2. Should a person capable of believing it be adjudged competent to vote? To answer #1, we must consider the major claims of, and real evidence for, evolution. Three Key Atheist Claims 1. Matter has either been here forever, or it came into existence by "Natural" causes, in real history. 2. Life either came into existence by "Natural" causes or been here forever (virtually never argued). And, oh by the way, that first life, didn't just happen, but could also auto magically stamp out copies of itself. 3. Following the magical occurance of the first, self-replicating life form, errors in copying the major code (DNA) for how to make (key parts of) the life form, produced at least a million new biological structures in the last "500 million years," and millions of species, genre, families, etc. For Atheist Claim #1: Matter has been here forever or came into being Naturally. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states emphatically that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. We transform matter, e.g., we burn logs, but the total matter/energy in the Cosmos does not change.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bob_2 · 02-12-09 9:37 pm

Continued from above <a href="http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200807.pdf" target=_top>http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200807.pdf</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:But, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which, because of its importance, many believe should be called #1, states that, in every exchange of energy, some is effectively lost due to an imperfect exchange. In each energy exchange, e.g., in a fire, or a living cell, the total energy in the universe remains the same, but a qualitative change causes there to be less available for work. The measure of this loss is called entropy, and is called by many "Times Arrow." A universally understood result of this law is that, if the Cosmos had truly been here forever, there would be no energy available for work. The Cosmos would be at about 3 degrees above absolute zero (0 K on the Kelvin scale, -273.15 centigrade, -459.67 Fahrenheit). This is a largely uncontested fact, not a "Christian myth." The atheist, Isaac Asimov, in his Intelligent Man's Guide to Science stated essentially the same thing. This presents a nontrivial issue for atheists. Matter cannot have been here forever (2nd Law) and it cannot come into existence in real time (1st Law). Thus, these Laws, known to everyone qualified to be called a "science teacher" clearly require a powerful, non-material cause of the Cosmos. Only a fool can know of these two laws and remain an atheist. Claim #1 of atheism is absurd. Claim #2: Life started in Nature. Four thousand years of Human observation, and 400 years of extensive laboratory experiments, all of which resulted in the "Law of Biogenesis - "Life comes only from life." There is not one successful experiment or observation in all of human history to refute this law. As far as all men who have ever lived know, life comes only from life. But, if God exists, then the cause of life is external to the Cosmos. Claim #3: At least a million new biological structures have formed in the last 500 million years. The only "proof" of this claim takes the forms like the Petrii dishes above. Bacteria are subjected to some chemical, or other treatment. The change in environment is designed to kill, and many die, but some develop resistance to the new environment. Evolutionists shout, "Evolution is just change, change is everywhere, evolution is a fact!" This is a bit like noticing dents in your child's wagon, and deciding that rocks change wagons, therefore more rocks might turn it into a car. Pause and consider that evolution is sold as a process capable of producing Man from bacteria, but what is demonstrated is bacterial resistance to some chemical. Of the million or so biological structures that evolutionists need, not one has ever been observed, much less demonstrated! It is a simple fact that, in the entire history of man, not one new biological structure has ever been observed. Thus, their theory is an absurd religious insanity. But, it gets worse. Evolutionist Religion Cannot Ascribe Purpose to Man Because they aggressively insist that random processes resulted in every biological structure on Earth, we must reflect on what else we know about such processes. First, by definition, they have no purpose. It would be an oxymoron to call events with a purpose "random." By definition, random events have no purpose. It necessarily follows that the results ("products") of random processes can have no purpose. If such events cause a tree to fall or a car to receive a dent, no purpose can possibly be ascribed to these results. Random processes do not havepurpose! Thus, in the Evolutionist Religion, Man can have no purpose. If you read evolutionist ramblings enough, you find that they all eventually admit this, even exult in it. Thus, "Evolutionist Man" cannot have purpose. But, all human laws are purportedly to punish "wrong" behavior, or to promote "maximum or general good" for the most people. If Man has no purpose, how can any behavior be deemed "wrong" ... or "right?" What is "good?" How can an evolutionist know how much "good" to vote for, because there can be no "good" in his religion. If he tries to claim otherwise, on what basis does he make the claim? He cannot possibly know any purpose for Man, therefore, it is impossible for him to have a rational conversation about what Man "ought" to do, or what would be "good" for Man to experience Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote? <ul><li>They do not and can not know the purpose for Man. In <LI>fact, all of them believe Man has no purpose. <LI>Therefore, they cannot make informed judgments about <LI>how men should behave toward each other, or what would <LI>be "good" or "bad" for any group of men to do, or not do. <LI>Thus, they have no sane foundation upon which to base <LI>“laws” or rational for insisting that other men obey the <LI>laws. <LI>Thus, the religion they profess to believe renders them incapable <LI>of participating in any decision about what men ought <LI>to do. But, that is the purpose of all law. <LI>Therefore, in a sane society, evolutionists should not be allowed <LI>to vote, or influence laws or people in any way! <LI>They should, perhaps, make bricks to earn enough to eat.</li></ul> Q.E.D. - Quod Erat Demonstrandum "That which was to be demonstrated." OK, OK, you're going to say "You didn't deal with theistic evolution." Well, I challenge all comers to find a single hint of evolution or one unequivocal hint of as much as 20,000 years in the Bible, and, as shown above, no evolution occurs in empirical or theoretical science. So the theistic evolutionist must look squarely at us and declare "I believe in God, but the Bible, real empirical and theoretical science are all wrong. My stories about what might have happened in the past are what I, and all others, should believe." This is even worse than the atheists. Historically, those who claim belief in God, but elevate human opinion or tradition over the Bible, have always performed as badly any atheist. If you had any say, would you allow such a person to influence, in any way, what citizens ought, by law, to do? Q.E.D. numerus duo. The Real Meaning of This Essay The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally unwarrented. The facts warrent the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor. Oh, by the way… What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God? But, of course, I myself, am not deluded. "Kingdom Now" theology notwithstanding, I have no expectations that such a proposal will ever be implemented, for the simple reason that delusion is ordained by God to reign until Christ returns. (2 Thess 2:10) <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

maggie · 02-12-09 10:40 pm

The facts warrent [sic] the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. But, of course, I myself, am not deluded. Okaaaayyyy.....<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/513.gif" alt="blink">

neal · 02-12-09 11:12 pm

He sounds like another Hitler *********************************** The Real Meaning of This Essay The arrogance displayed by the jewish race is totally unwarranted. The facts warrant the violent expulsion of all jews from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor. Oh, by the way… What is the chance jews will vote or teach in Nazi Germany? But, of course, I myself, am not deluded. Naziism notwithstanding, I have no expectations that such a proposal will ever be accepted, for the simple reason that delusion is ordained by God to reign until Christ returns. (2 Thess 2:10) ****************************** Bob, I realize that this freak of our race lives near you but do you really want to post his Kingdom Now theocracy junk on here? Even though you are not a citizen I at least thought you liked our representative democracy.

neal · 02-12-09 11:28 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Krazy Kansas Kook wants to eliminate all biologists Category: Kooks Posted on: August 23, 2008 6:25 PM, by PZ Myers When last we heard from Tom Willis, big-wig in the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, he was pondering whether evolutionists should be allowed to vote. Since Tom Willis is Edited by Admin insane, he decided that no, they should not, because they're wicked godless atheists with no moral sense (you theistic evolutionists aren't spared — you're even worse). Now he has upped the ante and is wondering, Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?. I wonder what his answer will be? After declaring evolutionists incompetent, unproductive, dangerous, at war with Christianity, and to have demanded the elimination of Christians (what powers of projection he has!), Willis finally explains what must be done with us.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: Clearly then, "evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land." All that remains for us to discuss is "What should be done with evolutionists?" For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence and merely mention possible solutions to the "evolutionism problem," leaving the legal details to others: *Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps. * Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce "Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent - Potentially Dangerous." I consider this option too dangerous. * Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them. * An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder. A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it. * All options should include 24-hour sound system playing Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris reading Darwin's Origin of Species, or the preservation of Favored Races by Means of Natural Selection. Of course some will consider this cruel & unusual, especially since they will undoubtedly have that treatment for eternity.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/krazy_kansas_kook_wants_to_eli.php" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/krazy_k ansas_kook_wants_to_eli.php</a> Bob2, is it even possible to find a stinkier pile of dog poo to pull insane quotes from than you have found in Tom Willis? I think not, but I am certain you will keep searching. (Message edited by admin on February 27, 2009)

john8verse32 · 02-13-09 12:10 am

...what a <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/516.jpg" alt="">

maggie · 02-13-09 12:14 am

Bob, I wonder if you read this site before you posted. Are you really endorsing these ideas? Neal, do you think this is a spoof site? Or maybe just another Fred Phelps kind of Christian, since you brought up stinky piles? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/518.gif" alt="caca"> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9RTNT_aucY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9RTNT_aucY</a>

bob_2 · 02-13-09 1:38 am

Read it using Evolutionist, not Jew, at no place is it talking holocaust type words as Neal is, it is talking about the way Darwinists are, the rationale that some could use for the way they think and act about evotutionary belief. You all need to get over that that's the way Darwinists really are. Yes I meant to post it as much as Darwinist crap is posted by Neal, atheist, and John, Agnosist, and Maggie.....???? overly sensitive.....????

maggie · 02-13-09 2:20 am

Violent expulsion from civilized society? Labor camps? Forced to wear placards? Waterboarding? You're seriously defending all that inflammatory rhetoric? I'm oversensitive?

maggie · 02-13-09 3:01 am

Bob, seems to me you'd want to counter our "crap" with material that didn't make Christians appear unbalanced and bizarre, something that would portray Christianity in a positive light, and Christians as people with a heart for their fellow man, and minds capable of critical thinking. For some reason, you choose an example of rhetoric that is right in the pit with the Phelps clan for Fundamentalist extremes. I thought you weren't that kind of Fundamentalist.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 3:50 am

The piece was written due to what Evolutionist believe. Marxism was what it was because those who disagreed were done away with and didn't get to vote, so it developed into a pure idea of Marxism, same with Darwinism. Scientists that are Creationists, are not allowed to vote, so Darwinism raises it's head in what is, it appears, a pure ideology. The piece was trying to show what Darwinism really contributes, not much. Don't make it anymore than the piece it is. Not every piece is antisemitic or about some spin on the Holocaust, Neal. Give it up. (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 13, 2009)

neal · 02-13-09 6:59 am

The piece was written due to what Evolutionist believe. The piece was written due to what a Kingdom Now supporter desires: the overthrow of the government and the imposition of a conservative christian theocracy. Marxism was what it was because those who disagreed were done away with and didn't get to vote, so it developed into a pure idea of Marxism, same with Darwinism. If I scrambled up quotes from past and current economists such as Fisher, Keynes, Friedman, Greenspan, Marx, Bernanke, Smith, and Goolsbee you wouldn't know what quote went with who nor the theories of each or any of them. Therefore, when you attempt to compare one topic that you are ignorant about to another topic you are ignorant about we are likely to see you come up with an ignorant and false conclusion. Which is exactly what you have done. What COULD be done is at the admission area of hospitals and doctors offices the questionnaire would have a simple question about trust in science and evolution. Those that answer that they are believers in the Bible and deny evolution are sent to the prayer wing where they will be attended to by the cleric of their choice and his holy water, olive oil that has been prayed over, and fasting and prayer. No flu shots. No immunizations for the kiddies. Just faith and prayer. Those that have accepted the fact of evolution and the vast contributions to biology and medicine are given the normal treatment with doctors, radiologists, nurses, injections, immunizations, flu shots, brain scans, MRI's, etc. Science is just a terrible thing that we wouldn't want to force the belief in humanistic healing onto the faithful of the superstitious members of our civilization.

neal · 02-13-09 7:06 am

Neal, do you think this is a spoof site? This is definitely NOT a spoof site. Sarah Palin believes things similar. We know Bob loved her and her inflammatory rhetoric to the guns and God white ignorant men in our society. Ya' know, the "Base" of the Republican party. **Study up on Kingdom Now, Assemblies of God, Joel's Army, etc. Then you will understand Palin's rhetoric. Its very similar to Bob's "provider of quotes on Darwin". What a joke.

maggie · 02-13-09 9:57 am

Oh, I've posted a lot about Dominionism, for years, Neal. It's just that that site was so totally bizarre (colonies on Mars?) that I couldn't believe it (or Bob) was serious. Silly me.

maggie · 02-13-09 10:00 am

The piece was written due to what Evolutionist believe. Evolutionists should be violently expelled from civilized society because of what they believe??? Oh, I get it. You're advocating for a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition. Why didn't you say so....

maggie · 02-13-09 10:02 am

Scientists that are Creationists, are not allowed to vote, so Darwinism raises it's head in what is, it appears, a pure ideology. Creationists are not allowed to vote in local and national elections? Please document.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 12:31 pm

Maggie, I don't want to offend your sensitivities so I won't, just to say that you and Neal are abusive, continually and should be aware of others sensitivities. Next I would develop some logic, and not assume you have all the right answers. Darwinism would not be as pervasive as it is today if scientists opposed to the concept were included in lists of scientists and taken seriously, with their serious input. I listened to Hank Handigraaf of <a href="http://www.equip.org" target=_top>www.equip.org</a> on this very subject, and he has a set of books that show how Darwinism like Marxism became or are becoming pure ideology because opposing views were/are eliminated or scorned, just as you two are doing.

neal · 02-13-09 1:22 pm

Bob2 Less than TWO HOURS ago you said:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:...I can freely say what I want...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Now you are saying we CANNOT say what we feel is proper? you and Neal are abusive, continually What a whiner.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 3:05 pm

You can continue and probably will continue to be abusive, I have no control over you, or Maggie. Maggie is the whiner, she got relieve so lets leave it at that, but feign it if you will. Maggie talks of lots more offesive stuff than was the issue in her email to Ryan, so be it.

neal · 02-13-09 3:28 pm

You can continue and probably will continue to be abusive.... Could you give an example? You write that you can say anything you like, post crap which states that acknowledging the fact of evolution is deserving of being kicked out of the country or even sent to another planet, then complain that I am abusive? Get a grip on reality man.

elaine · 02-13-09 6:25 pm

Neal, glad you're back to liven up the place. Calling "stupid" when things are "stupid." We need more of yours and John's input to strangle some of the clumsy crap attempted by Bob, such as: Darwinism would not be as pervasive as it is today if scientists opposed to the concept were included in lists of scientists and taken seriously, with their serious input." The only reason "scientists" opposed to Darwin are not published is a creationist conspiracy dedicated to preventing the "True Believers" from reading such heresy. Anybody interested in Nebraska beachfront property? Or maybe buying the Golden Gate Bridge? Bob, isn't that just what you're interested in?

bob_2 · 02-13-09 8:01 pm

Elaine calling creationism heresy, is such crap, it doesn't warrant a response. Respect that Ryan has asked for and the continual bickering is not welcome from you Or Neal and you will be called on it as it continues, since you are both welcome to make fools out of yourselves. This earth with it's thin oxygen rich atmosphere, and tilt of it's axis that allows for life is no accident of evolution, Darwinistic or other wise and is heresy of the highest order to suggest it, and you both know it, that's the shame of it, mocking God.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 8:05 pm

Neal without his pjorative manner would not have half the attention he gets. He needs to quit insulting and talking so abusively, preferably soon without you or maybe JR egging him on. That tidbit came just at the right time, to help Ryan see how things used to be run and why there is so much bickering by the likes of Neal. (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 13, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 02-12-09 7:51 am

Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#2 02-12-09 5:33 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#3 02-12-09 9:27 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#4 02-12-09 9:37 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#5 02-12-09 10:40 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#6 02-12-09 11:12 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#7 02-12-09 11:28 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#8 02-13-09 12:10 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#9 02-13-09 12:14 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#10 02-13-09 1:38 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#11 02-13-09 2:20 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#12 02-13-09 3:01 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#13 02-13-09 3:50 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#14 02-13-09 6:59 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#15 02-13-09 7:06 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#16 02-13-09 9:57 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#17 02-13-09 10:00 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#18 02-13-09 10:02 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#19 02-13-09 12:31 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#20 02-13-09 1:22 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#21 02-13-09 3:05 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#22 02-13-09 3:28 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#23 02-13-09 6:25 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#24 02-13-09 8:01 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#25 02-13-09 8:05 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

Board footer