Raf

You know, if you added the words following "wise man," everyone would get this.

Okaaaay.... The spinoff series was recently rebooted on TV with a series of the same name. It did not succeed.

This popular movie spawned three sequels, which is a neat trick when you consider that the main character was an anti-hero who died at the end of the novel on which the first movie in the series was based. Interestingly, the main character kills no one in the first movie (and plenty of people in the sequels).

I am? Oh. I am. Ok...

Allan, I'm really sorry you won't admit that you faked it and continue to do so. But if you'd like to prove your claim by identifying the language and demonstrating that you never learned it, I am certainly open to actual evidence. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath... Folks, this thread was dead, pretty much. What's say unless someone actually has something new to add, we let it rest? Can I get an amen?

Starring Noah Hathaway, Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer.

If you check out the SIT, TIP confession thread, you'll probably see a "how convenient is that" type of argument weaving through my posts. Why can't linguists detect an actual language when a person is speaking in tongues in an observable setting? List the reasons. They're hilarious. 1. The linguist's knowledge is limited. 2. God won't subject himself to a test. It's genuine when the speaker is speaking under conditions that are not being observed, but take the same speaker performing the same action in the same way while someone is watching and taking notes, and suddenly God's not energizing it anymore. The speaker can't tell the difference. But trust me, God energizes it in church, but won't energize it in a lab. How convenient is that? 3. God promised NO ONE would understand when a person speaks in tongues. Acts 2 was an anomaly. Other anomalies include stories about people visiting fellowships from West Bubbagump, astonished to hear someone who's never been to West Bubbagump suddenly speaking in fluent West Bubbagumpian! At last, a confirmed case of SIT producing a language, violating the ironclad rule that NO ONE would understand (a rule that suddenly becomes as ironclad as a colander)! So where are these West Bubbagumpians? Gone. No one has seen or heard from them since. How convenient is that? Etc.

Yes

16 people won't admit they faked it. 22 people admit it. Not a representative sample. Proves nothing. But definitely not "neck and neck."

No Easy Way Out The Burning Heart Living in America

A little boy fleeing a bunch of bullies steals a book and escapes into a the tale of two jilted lovers who spend fifteen years of marriage together, only to find that they might no longer love each other. As he reads, the boy learns that the events of the book are really happening, and he has a role to play in the outcome.

I'm offended!

Cool. Because we're not going to resolve creation v. evolution on an Internet message board. Back to topic, then...

Once Upon a Time Bandits

The Exorcist. And for good measure Annie

I concur and am willing to call it a draw if you are.

Forrest Gump

Cool. I was trying to pick an easy one, and I Dreamed a Dream is about as recognizable a song as that movie had.

I'm not sure it has happened regularly, but it has happened since. Example, the characters of Ally McBeal (Fox) showed up on The Practice (ABC) and vice versa. And Det. Munch has been on Homicide, Law n Order, The Wire, The X-Files and The Simpsons, I think. But in terms of two regular supporting characters, no, I'm not sure it has happened since.

This ABC series was a spinoff of another ABC series, but ABC decided not to renew it for its third season. NBC picked it up for a third season, however. The parent series continued to air on ABC, the spinoff aired on NBC. It was the first time in TV history that supporting actors in one series on one network played the same characters at the same time in another series on a different network. Again, I'm looking for the spinoff series.

I Dreamed a Dream Master of the House On My Own Bring Him Home

I know this. it's... it's... it's making me crazy... WordWolf, you wanna take it or what?

Hooray?

One more thing, as regards the Cambrian explosion and the challenge it poses to evolution by natural selection: It doesn't. The Cambrian explosion is a popular tool of creationists to cast doubt on the fact of evolution, but it does nothing to cast doubt on natural selection as the mechanism that best explains how evolution has taken place. I refer you to the National Center for Science Education (the same outfit whose article you cited to inadvertently establish that the Biblical flood was indeed an actual error, as I have repeatedly demonstrated). http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/darwin-s-dilemma-was-cambrian-explosion-too-fast-evolution-0015109 Abstract for source article for the NCSE article: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00916-0 Actual source article: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(13)00916-0.pdf

T-Bone, I personally believe your first paragraph reflects the majority of our experiences, mine included. I believe you can still be a decent, doctrinal consistent Christian while subscribing to your second paragraph, but of course, my opinion on such a thing is no longer worth terribly much. ;)