Evolution

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 18, 2013 at 6:04pm

Darwinism Discredited By Real Scientists

Phyllis Spivey

January 27, 2006. NewsWithViews.com

 

Please Note: Each coloured link within the article will lead you to a related topic on a different page of this site. However while the text is part of the original article, the links are not. The author of this article may or may not agree with the views expressed on those pages, or anything else on this site..             

 

For an anthology of well-documented quotations of 50 Nobel Laureates And Other Great Scientists Who Believe In God, see the free e-book compiled by Tihomir Dimitrov

 

Does modern-day science prove the Bible is false? Many today seem to think so. But an even a more pertinent question is, "CAN science prove the Bible is false?" A study of the history and nature of science is needed to answer these questions. Science and the Bible

 

Before you laugh at stupid Christians, ask yourself if there is any proof that the claims of the Bible are true. Scientific facts in the Bible

               

                               

                Bible1-Bar          

                               

               

 

"All major scientists support evolution." This is the Darwinist’s response of choice to anyone who dares question the notion that matter, time, and chance – not God – have brought all things into existence. Darwinists assert there is neither scientific support nor intellectual basis for the Biblical account of creation.

 

That Darwin diehards continue to promulgate this deception characterizes the dishonesty of their entire debate. Scott M. Huse exposes this and other evolutionary fallacies in his fine book, The Collapse of Evolution, in which he presents scientific evidence for biblical creationism and shows why the theory of evolution and the scriptures are irreconcilable. Written in plain language, documented with 39 pages of endnotes, appendices, and bibliography, the book is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking the truth – including Christians.

 

Too many Christians, when confronted with the argument that real scientists support Darwin’s conclusions, throw in the towel for lack of knowledge. Huse’s list of pioneering, Bible-believing scientists comes to their aid. It’s comprehensive, historically reliable, and demands wide distribution.

 

    Joseph Lister, Antiseptic Surgery

    Louis Pasteur, Bacteriology

    Sir Isaac Newton, Dynamics (discovered the laws of gravity, mathematics, co-discovered calculus)

    Johann Kepler, Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy

    Robert Boyle, Chemistry

    Georges Cuvier, Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Palentology

    Charles Babbage, Computer Science

    James Clerk Maxwell, Electrodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics

    Michael Faraday, Electromagnetics, Field Theory

    Ambrose Fleming, Electronics

    Lord William Kelvin, Energetics, Thermodynamics

    Henri Fabre, Entomology

    George Stokes, Fluid Mechanics

    William Herschel, Galactic Astronomy

    Robert Boyle, Gas Dynamics

    Gregor Mendel, Genetics

    Louis Agassiz, Glacial Geology, Ichthyology

    James Simpson, Gynecology

    Leonardo da Vinci, Hydraulics

    Blaise Pascal, Hydrostatics

    William Ramsay, Isotopic Chemistry

    Matthew Maury, Oceanography

    David Brewster, Optical Mineralogy

    John Woodward, Paleontology

    Rudolph Virchow, Pathology

    James Joule, Reversible Thermodynamics

    Sir Francis Bacon, Scientific Method

    Nicholas Steno, Stratigraphy

    Carolus Linnaeus, Systematic Biology

    Humphrey Davy, Thermokinetics

 

These masters are not scientists Darwinists can dismiss. Many were contemporaries of Charles Darwin, their contributions made during Darwin’s lifetime or later. As for modern scientists, Huse points out that today there are literally thousands of highly reputable scientists representing every scientific discipline who completely dismiss the concept of organic evolution in favor of biblical creationism.

 

Listing 100 creation-science organizations operating worldwide, 71 of which are in the United States, Huse provides impressive examples of scientists who have outspokenly rejected evolution, including John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for Dow Chemical Company, who offered $1,000 to anyone who could produce just one clear proof of evolution. Holder of over 100 patents, Dr. Grebe developed Styrofoam, synthetic rubber, and Saran Wrap.

 

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, stated bluntly:

 

    "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

 

P. Lemoine, president of the Geological Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris concluded:

 

    "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate....It results from the summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible."

 

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.

 

    "In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

 

    For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

 

    . . . Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."

 

Decades later, with technological advances creating ever more dilemmas for Darwinists, they perch precariously on their evolutionary "chair," as described by Scott Huse.

 

    "As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there, No legs, or back, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that."

 

In a Darwinist’s perfect world, opponents would shut up: Christians, creationists, and intelligent design advocates would cower in silence; schools would indoctrinate without objection, and scientists would speak with one voice. Evolutionary theory would not only reign, it would be preached without challenge.

 

Standing in the way of that "perfect world" are authors such as James Perloff who has compiled a wealth of creation facts and evolutionary fables in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, The Relentless Myth of Darwinism. Perloff’s presentation of what the world’s best known scientists have said and thought about the origins of man and earth makes clear that Christians needn’t apologize for a lack of real scientists in their ranks.

 

The Missouri-based Creation Research Society, for example, has over 600 voting members with post-graduate science degrees. The entire faculty of California’s Institute for Creation Research holds advanced scientific degrees and, in 1997, Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the medical diagnostic device known as the MRI joined the Institute’s Technical Advisory Board

 

Perloff observes that even Newsweek magazine in a 1998 cover story entitled "Science Finds God" noted:

 

    "According to a study released last year, 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God – not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 18, 2013 at 6:05pm

Among the many modern-day scientists quoted by Perloff is rocket scientist Werner von Braun, who oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space and masterminded the moon landing. An active Christian who prayed for the safety of those on the missions he planned, Braun’s declarations left no doubt about his beliefs.

 

In a letter to the California State Board of Education, von Braun stated:

 

    "There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye? ...To be forced to believe one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself."

 

Von Braun also observed:

 

    "Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. "

 

In 1959, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, was even more blunt:

 

    "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

 

Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, then director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, stated in 1984:

 

    "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "

 

Dr. Wolfgang Smith, science writer and teacher at MIT and UCLA, said in 1988:

 

    "And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformation have ever occurred."

 

Charles Townes, who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on laser principles said:

 

    "As a religious person, I strongly sense . . . the presence and actions of a creative being far beyond myself and yet always personal and close by."

 

    It has ever been so. Considered by many to be the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, and constructed the first reflecting telescope. He wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion, including papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible. Newton believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation and a young earth:

 

    "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

 

    "All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer."

 

Sir John William Dawson, who pioneered Canadian geology and served as president of both Mc Gill University and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, stated in 1887:

 

    "We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled."

 

Astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), who discovered Uranus and built the greatest reflecting telescopes of his day, said.

 

    "The undevout astronomer must be mad, " he said.

 

John Frederick Herschel (son of Sir William) discovered more than 500 stars and nebulae, declaring:

 

    "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."

 

John Flamsteed (1646-1719) made the first great map of the stars, founded the famous Greenwich Observatory, was first Astronomer Royal of England – and a clergyman.

 

John Ray (1627-1705), first to suggest classifying organisms by species and considered the leading authority on zoology and botany in his day, also authored theological books, including The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation.

 

The verdict is in, just ignored. Scientists have ever deliberated the origins of life and the greatest among them, yesterday and today, have embraced biblical creationism. Yet the myth of Darwinism persists, embraced by atheists and agnostics, enabled by timid, apathetic, or misinformed Christians.

 

From 1859 -- when Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published -- to the present; from Marx, Nietzche, and Huxley to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, Darwinism has been used to justify class struggle, racial purity, genocide, and the mass slaughter of innocents. Make no mistake. If today’s evolutionists get their perfect world, evil will occupy the throne.

 

 

© 2006 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved

 

 

 

Catholicism-Bar-2

 

 

 

A Scientist And A Christian?

"Scientists are anchored in the U. S. mainstream." It says that half participate in religious activities regularly. Looking at the poll is that 43% of Ph.D. scientists are in church on a typical Sunday. In the American public, 44% are in church on a typical Sunday (Poll of the professional society Sigma Zi to which three thousand three hundred responded)

 

 

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." –U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.   (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world).

 

Erwin Schrodinger. “I'm very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously”.  (Founder of wave mechanics and the originator of what is the most important equation in science, Schrodinger's equation)

 

Richard Ferriman. "Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way."   (Nobel prizewinner in physics in 1965, quoted some 9 years before receiving the Nobel prize).

 

Allen Lichtman. “References to God continued in the scientific literature until the middle to late 1800's. It seems likely that the lack of religious references after this time seem more from a change in social and professional conventions among scientists rather than from any change in underlying thought. Indeed, contrary to popular myth, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public”. (Author of Origins (Harvard University Press) and an M.I.T. professor.)

 

Michael Polony. “I shall re-examine the suppositions underlying our belief in science and propose to show that they are more extensive than is usually thought. They will appear to coextend with the entire spiritual foundations of man and to go to the very root of his social existence. Hence I will urge our belief in science should be regarded as a token of much wider convictions” (Professor of chemistry and then philosophy at the University of Manchester. His son, John Polony, won the Nobel prize in 1986.)

 

Francis Bacon. “Let no one think or maintain that a person can search too far or be too well studied in either the book of God's word or the book of God's works”.

 

Johannes Kepler. “I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace.” ( Discoverer of the laws of planetary motion.)

 

…He also said that he desired in his scientific research “to obtain a sample test of the delight of the Divine Creator in his work and to partake of his joy”. (In answer to the question "Why do you do science?",

 

Blaise Pascal. “God makes people conscious of their inward wretchedness, which the Bible calls ‘sin’ and his infinite mercy. Unites himself to their inmost soul, fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, renders them incapable of any other end than Himself. Jesus Christ is the end of all and the center to which all tends.”

 

AND “At the center of every human being is a God–shaped vacuum, which can only be filled by Jesus Christ”. (Father of the mathematical theory of probability and combinatorial analysis)

 

Robert Boyle. Author of The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation. He personally endowed an annual lectureship promoted to the defense of Christianity against indifferentism and atheism was a good friend of Richard Baxter, a great Puritan theologian and governor of the Corporation for the Spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England. Robert Boyle. (Developed the idea of atoms.. Boyle’s law)

 

Isaac Newton. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

 

“One might assume from this statement that Newton was a Deist (system of natural religion that affirms God's existence but denies revelation). However, quotes like this shows this is not true:”

 

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.”

 

 “It must be expressed in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the apostles. For men are apt to run into partings about deductions. All the old heresies lie in deductions. The true faith was in the Biblical texts.” Isaac Newton. mathematician, physicist, co–discoverer with Liebnitz of calculus, the founder of classical physics. Author of Observations on the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of Saint John.

 

George Trevellian. “Boyle, Newton and the early members of the Royal Society were religious men who repudiated the skeptical doctrines of Thomas Hobbs. But they familiarized the minds of their countrymen with the idea of law in the universe and with scientific methods of inquiry to discover truth. It was believed that these methods would never lead to any conclusions inconsistent with Biblical history and miraculous religion. Newton lived and died in that faith”. (A secular historian)

 

Michael Faraday. “Speculations, man, I have none. I have certainties. I thank God that I don't rest my dying head upon speculations for "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day." (When a friend and well–wisher came by and said, "Sir Michael, what speculations have you now?” Faraday discovered benzene and electromagnetic radiation, invented the generator and was the main architect of classical field theory).

 

James Clerk Maxwell. “Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to his righteousness and are willing to receive his gift [of eternal life in Jesus Christ]. They are to be conformed to the image of his Son and when that is fulfilled and God sees they are conformed to the image of Christ, there can be no more condemnation.” (The second of the three great theoretical physicists of all time.)

 

Maxwell and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. When Maxwell was invited to go to a meeting on the Italian Riviera in February to discuss new developments in science and the Bible. He turned down the invitation. He explained:

 

“The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.”

 

Somebody who obviously not an admirer of Faraday and Maxwell. The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries. (They did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do).

 

Organic Chemists

 

William Henry Perkins. “Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….” Discovered the first synthetic dye. The Perkins transactions of the Royal Society of London is named after him), Perkins sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.

 

William Thompson. “Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God”. (Leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius)

 

J. J. Thompson.  “In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.” (Discoverer of the electron in 1897. Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University. )

 

(The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.)

 

Theoretical Chemists

 

Charles Coulson. “There were some ten of us and together we sought for God and together we found Him. I learned for the first time in my life that God was my friend. God became real to me, utterly real. I knew Him and could talk with Him as I never imagined it before and these prayers were the most glorious moment of the day. Life had a purpose and that purpose coloured everything.”  (One of the three principal architects of the molecular orbital theory. He disqualified himself from the Nobel prize by dying at the age of 64.)

 

Robert Griffith. “If we need an atheist for a debate, I'd go to the philosophy department—the physics department isn't much use.” (Member of The U.S. Academy of Sciences & Otto Stern professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University. He received one of the most coveted awards of the American Physical Society in 1984 on his work in physical mechanics and thermodynamics. Physics Today said he is an evangelical Christian who is an amateur theologian and who helps teach a course on Christianity and science.

 

Richard Bube. “There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.” (Chairman of the department of materials science at Stanford and carried out foundational work on solid state physics concerning semiconductors)

 

John Suppee. “Some non–scientist Christians, when they meet a Christian, will call on to debate evolution. That is definitely the wrong thing to do. If you know what problems scientists have in their lives—pride, selfish ambition, jealousy—that's exactly the kind of thing Jesus Christ said that He came to resolve by His death on the cross. Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflict with each other. The gospel is the same for scientists as it is for anyone. Evolution is basically a red herring; if scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won't be found in evolution. I have never met a non–Christian who brought up evolution with me.”  (Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and noted professor of geology at Princeton.)

 

Charles H. Townes. You may well ask, "Where does God come into this," to me, that's almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular "where"—He is always there, everywhere….To me, God is personal yet omnipresent. A great source of strength, He has made an enormous difference to me. (Candidate for a second Nobel Prize for the first observation of an interstellar molecule. Still has a very active research program at Berkeley.)

 

Arthur Schawlow. “We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells so much about God in widely accessible, human terms”.  (Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1981, serves as physics professor at Stanford)

 

Alan Sandage. “The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures”. (The world's greatest observational cosmologist, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution. He was called the Grand Old Man of cosmology by The New York Times when he won a $1 million prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Sandage became a Christian at the age of fifty.)

 

 “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance…I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order and each of its organisms is simply too well put together”. (When asked to explain how one can be a scientist and a Christian)

 

William Phillips. “God has given us an incredibly fascinating world to live in and explore. “ (Nobel Prize winner for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. According to The New York Times, Phillips "formed and sings in the gospel choir at Fairhaven United Methodist Church, a multi–racial congregation of about 300 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also teaches Sunday School and leads Bible studies.)

 

Why Are There So Few Atheists Among Physicists?

 

The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions. —Paul Davies

 

In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that produced life like ours are immense. —Stephen Hawking

 

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. —Fred Hoyle

 

And Finally

 

So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? C. P. Snow, who was certainly not a Christian, said yes.  He used to be very famous as the author of a book called The Two Cultures and was a physical chemist at Oxford University.

 

“You will understand that my atheism was inevitably based on what I believed to be the findings of the sciences and those findings, not being a scientist, I had to take on trust, in fact, on authority. C. S. Lewis

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on October 19, 2013 at 7:56pm

You do realize, David, that it's going to take the average person a month to read all this? LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 20, 2013 at 12:50pm

Tammy,

Is ok  :) even if it takes 3 months is ok, but we have to start reading hahaha No pun intended.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mischelle on October 20, 2013 at 1:16pm

Tammy,

I was beginning to think that our dear Bro. David was thinking he was writing a book. LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ribbon on October 21, 2013 at 10:07pm

david V....

still reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and  reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on October 22, 2013 at 3:38pm

Blank,

ROFL ROFL. You're doing better then me. I never started it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ribbon on October 22, 2013 at 6:21pm

Tammy,

You "did" start it.  I am innocent as always.  I was just picking up where you left off because I thought maybe you were busy.  :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ribbon on October 23, 2013 at 12:29am

oh ... ok Tammy ,I get it now..... you never started it ,means you never started reading it. I , at first , didn't know what you meant... so I thought you were saying something like you didn't start something... ..

sorry anout that.  I  usually don't read the real long copied and pasted either but I do  most of the long comments written by the members.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on October 28, 2013 at 3:00pm

ROFL Confused. Yes, I never starting reading it. I seen the title & that it was copied & pasted & moved along to the next one. I don't always read the long replies written by individuals either sometimes though I do try. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carla on October 22, 2013 at 4:24pm

Janie.. you're hilarious.  :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ribbon on October 22, 2013 at 6:22pm

Carla

:-)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page