It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution: The greatest conspiracy

page: 22
16
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by knkevinuk
reply to post by sisgood
 


The very fact that evolution is taught to children in the first place is evidence enough to suggest its a deception!



What?? Because it is taught in school it is a lie? So math, addition is a lie? 2+2=5? That Europe and Asia are connected is a lie?

Evolution is actually very poorly taught in most schools, which is one of the ways creationist get an advantage, their bad theory does sound good when compared to poorly understood and untaught science.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood

Necessity of perfection in animal organs. (paraphrased and this is a huge one)

For spiders, if evolution were true, they wouldn't exist. What use would a half-formed spinneret be to a spider? Could a spider exist today if such an important organ of their bodies took millions of years to evolve.
Answer... NO!

It's the same way for bees! How in the world do evolutionist explain how the bee survived without their pollen baskets for millions of years?

There are millions more of these examples of how a half-formed organ simply WOULD NOT WORK!!!

Necessity of perfection in both plants and animals for cross-pollination (paraphrased... again)

Did you know that the Yucca plant could not survive with out the pronuba moth? The moth takes pollen from the plant, flies to another Yucca plant and lays it's eggs in the plant. The moth larva eat about a fifth of the plant seeds and the rest... well, they are the reason we have Yucca plants now.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that these two species could have evolved the way they are now.

What about the Portuguese man of war and the Nomeus fish? The man of war catches the fish and the Nomeus is the bait! The nomeus is immune to the poison of the jelly fish. Not only does a half-evolved system like this not work but it would be impossible for evolution to improve the situation. Poisoned, dead fish can't lay eggs.


Or can anyone prove me wrong?



I don't have the information to prove you wrong but it is out there. your "problems" actually have all been addressed, and some of them are outright untrue (we have a LOT of evidence of transitions, that we don't have everything does not then prove YOUR more outrageous idea).

But this idea an organ must be "perfect" is another we are whittling away at. Its hard to find a fossilized spinnarette, but there are many other animals with organs that are more or less primative or work better than another animals. Once people said this about the eye, but in fact there are organs which range from our highly complicated orb down to slightly light sensitive spots, and they show a continuum of development of use. This lets us make a VERY educated guess that it probabaly evolved.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Please give me the evidence you have for one animal spicies transforming into a new species. Just one please. If you have several I prefer to deal with one at a time.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
the theory of evolution consists of observations, models, evidence



In science, the word theory "is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."



I suggest reading Paul Feyerabend`s example, the `Tower`...when Galileo successfully defended Copernican ideas without producing observations and evidence.

I guess that you yourself, requiring such solid foundations for progressive ideas, would have looked at what Galileo had said, in a rational manner and disagreed with him...thus delaying the scientific revolution.

If you are unfamiliar with the example, here`s a brief account,

The belief of the time, was that of an unmoving Earth. If an object was dropped from a height, say a tower, the object would land directly underneath, falling in a straight line, thus proving the Earth did not move.

Galileo produced a hypothesis, an unsubstantiated belief, based on Copernican ideas, to show otherwise.

The `Scientific Method`, which is comprised of many forms of observation and analysis, all of which proclaiming to produce the same factual results, only comes into play after someone has an idea outside of the box.

This `Paradigm Shift` can only occur when the norms/restrictions imposed by scientific enquiry are ignored and better viewed as an application, which attempts to produce certainty through a `5 sense` based complex terminology, which is only applicable after an event in the 6th sense, that of mind.

This is obviously not the whole story, the desires of society, politics etc through to the reputation of Universities all come to bear on the progress of an idea.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   



As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.

This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument

.....


Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.


So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.

If you think there is. Bring it on.



Here is that thread, so you can witness the amount of stretching and lying he is spoonfeeding you...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

..who has "beat up" who?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   




Please give me the evidence you have for one animal spicies transforming into a new species. Just one please. If you have several I prefer to deal with one at a time.

Thanks.



www.talkorigins.org...

Pick one.

But if by transforming you mean more than (relatively) small genetic and morphologic differences and reproductive barrier (macroevolution - for example bird from a reptile), I of course cannot give you direct observations in a laboratory, but geologic column, altough sometimes incomplete, speaks volumes.

Saying that evolution is false because we dont see speciation every day is like saying theory of gravitation is false because I dont see my pen on the desk being attracted to my pencase.. Its simply not what the theory says.. Noticeable changes require many generations (thousands of years..), just like noticeable force requires significant masses. Thats what the ToE says and observation agrees with it...

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Here is that thread, so you can witness the amount of stretching and lying he is spoonfeeding you...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

..who has "beat up" who?



Excuse me? Pay special attention to the posts by stylez on that thread you are telling people to visit. Not only did evolution get it's butt kicked on that thread by several people, including stylez and myself....Evolutionists also got a woop'n on OldThinkers Thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Last week, when the 3.2 million year old human fossil was found I witnessed the evolution scientists myself state on CNN that what they now believe is that man did not evolve from Chimpanzees....and what they are now believing is that the fossil record they have for humans does not show any transitions....but merely vatiations in the same species.The scientist that was interviewed stated that there appears to be two seperate lines....chimpanzees and humans.

You should keep up to date on your religion or you could very be left looking stupid for wasting your time plugging the holes in a sunk ship.


[edit on 6/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
But if by transforming you mean more than (relatively) small genetic and morphologic differences and reproductive barrier (macroevolution - for example bird from a reptile), I of course cannot give you direct observations in a laboratory, but geologic column, altough sometimes incomplete, speaks volumes.


Hu? Ya can't give direct evidence but the geologic column speaks volumes?
About what?

It tells me the fossil record in the sediment is the result of a world wide flood that took place about 4400 years ago.

Gee, could that be why the oldest coral reef is estimated to be 4400 years old? Could that be why the oldest living tree ever found tested out to be about 4400 yrs old?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

1. It's not me that fights over these terms. On another thread, creationists were accused of inventing the term "micro-evolution."
I'm not making this up. I did the research and proved that creationists did not invent the term micro-evolution.....it's in fact a term that was used by evolutionists and according to some of the better proponents of evolution on ATS such as my respected friend "Welfard" that term is not used anymore. But apparently not all evolutionists have gotten that message.


I have no problem with the term micro-evolution or macro-evolution either, and neither do Scientists. But whenever the term comes up in a debate it is because the creationists are trying to define it out of the argument. If creationist didn't invent it, then they don't have the privilege of defining it. If you use specialist terminology (jargon) you have to respect the terminology of the specialist who coined it.



2. The problem with your math (above) is that buying a lottery ticket is an act of human will and consciousness. The addition of acts involving human will and consciousness to make choices and decisions definitely changes the odds. The problem is, those elements do not come into play, since we are talking about the beginning of life from non life matter, without the possibility of human actions involving will, consciousness, choice, etc.

For life to come from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup in the absence of anyone making a conscious decision does in fact defy Mathematical odds even if that soup has all the perfect ingredients.



It is an analogy, not math. You use bad analogies all the time, you know what those are, stop pretending to be a carpenter's dream.

YOUR math depends on calculating the chance of two individual atoms coming together to form a molecule, and two individual molecules coming together to form another, more complex molecule, etc.

But there is simply no such thing as an individual atom or molecule in the event. There are many quadrillions of atoms and molecules. Random chance will hit pay dirt many hundreds of trillions of times. The mathematics is overwhelming. If it is even remotely possible for the 'chemical reaction' to occur in the conditions, it WILL. Period.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Evolution makes sense, look at Chimps, they look a lot like us, we are clearly more related to them then we are other animals. How do you explain the physical and genetic similarities then? If we are not apes than what are we? If not evolution, than what?


Apes and humans and kangaroos share 98% of the same DNA.
Humans are way above any animals. We never hear of animals creating a union to get their way.
We were created by God as humans. We are higher than the animals but lowe than the angels.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I am pleased you don't have a problem with the term micro-evolution.

As far as defining micro-evolution.....creationists don't define it so your comments about that are moot. Creationists just have a better explanation for micro-evolution. The creationist explanation for micro evolution is that DNA was designed to produce variation in species.

There is nothing wrong with my math.....it's not my math anyway....it's the math of expert scientists and mathematicians.

Like it or not, natural processes cannot cause non-living matter to become living organisms. The expert mathematicians have prove this as fact time and time again.

Micro-evolution does not prove Macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is the fantasy that says multiple consecutive mutations (that are not harmful to the species) lead to speciation.

Macro-evolution is Mathematically impossible:


1- Mutations are harmful. Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious impact on a perfect and complex structure will lead to destruction, not to improvement. In this respect, mutation in an organism is similar to, taking a microchip out of its place and throwing it away or mounting it to somewhere else in a computer. This only gives damage to the computer, not any benefit. This is just like how the mutations are; they seriously harm the genetic material.

2- As a result of mutations, no new additions are made to the DNA. Mutations can only tear or change the places of the existing genetic material. Therefore mutations can not produce new organs or characteristics for the organism.

3- Complex organs like the brain, eye or the reproduction organs, or characteristics like symbiosis or camouflage can unquestionably not be explained by mutations. It is illogical to claim that nearly forty organs from the retina to the eyelids which constitute the eye, can result because of mutations. In order for an eye to perform its function, all of its parts must exist concurrently and this is impossible by any spontaneous occurrence and without any conscious interference.

4- Mutations has to be in the hereditary cells in order to be transferred to the next generations. Changes in any somatic cell or any organ other than hereditary cells are not transferred. For example, the eye may mutate and change due to radiation or some other external effects, but this change will not be carried to the descendants.
Read More at Source

Fossilized reptile tracks have shrunk the evolution time line for the Cambrian Explosion(see source link below for the full article):

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction........................

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Incredible Shrinking Timeline



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

Apes and humans and kangaroos share 98% of the same DNA.




This is false info. The guys that came up with that figure used bad info.
The folks that discovered the error did not do the research to find the correct percentage.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
www.talkorigins.org...
Pick one.


I checked your link above. Is that the best you can do?

I took the first example and found this article:

creation.com...


De Vries had assumed that tetraploid Oenethera plants would ‘breed true’, forming a distinct species. However, the tetraploid specimens of Oenothera that de Vries and other botanists cultivated did not form their own self-perpetuating populations, requiring constant special care and consistently generating a range of chromosome sets (diploid, triploid, tetraploid, etc.) in their offspring. In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago.

That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.

SOURCE



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 



And make no mistake, satan is a very clever angel. He can, as the Bible says, appear as an angel of light.


So how can you believe the bible? What if the bible was created by satan? By the logic that you use in this thread, you should have to prove to me that the bible wasnt written by satan. Maybe the bible is satans greatest deception.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
[

Gee, could that be why the oldest coral reef is estimated to be 4400 years old? Could that be why the oldest living tree ever found tested out to be about 4400 yrs old?


Maybe, maybe not.

www.reuters.com...


Swedish spruce may be world's oldest living tree
Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:01am EDT

By Niklas Pollard

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Scientists have found a cluster of spruces in the mountains in western Sweden which, at an age of 8,000 years, may be the world's oldest living trees.

The hardy Norway spruces were found perched high on a mountain side where they have remained safe from recent dangers such as logging, but exposed to the harsh weather conditions of the mountain range that separates Norway and Sweden.

Carbon dating of the trees carried out at a laboratory in Miami, Florida, showed the oldest of them first set root about 8,000 years ago, making it the world's oldest known living tree, Umea University Professor Leif Kullman said.

California's "Methuselah" tree, a Great Basin bristlecone pine, is often cited as the world's oldest living tree with a recorded age of between 4,500 and 5,000 years.

Two other spruces, also found in the course of climate change studies in the Swedish county of Dalarna, were shown to be 4,800 and 5,500 years old.

"These were the first woods that grew after the Ice Age," said Lars Hedlund, responsible for environmental surveys in the county of Dalarna and collaborator in climate studies there.

"That means that when you speak of climate change today, you can in these (trees) see pretty much every single climate change that has occurred."

Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died, Professor Kullman said.

Rising temperatures in the area in recent years had allowed the spruces to grow rapidly, making them easier to find in the rugged terrain, he added.

"For quite some time they have endured as bushes maybe 1/2 meter tall," he said.

"But over the past few decades we have seen a much warmer climate, which has meant that they have popped up like mushrooms in the soil."

(Reporting by Niklas Pollard; Editing by Jon Boyle)



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


What about this coral reef? Coral Fossil

Why are you comfortable only accepting science when it reinforces your own belief?

You refute science when it goes against your belief and accept it when it suits your argument.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


Are you joking?
Until about 7th grade, I was taught that the bible is fact.
I rarely ever heard about evolution, and when the teachers did speak about it, they never went too deep into the subject.
In fact, I'm in high school now, and I still haven't had a class teach about evolution.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by rnaa
 


I am pleased you don't have a problem with the term micro-evolution.

As far as defining micro-evolution.....creationists don't define it so your comments about that are moot. Creationists just have a better explanation for micro-evolution. The creationist explanation for micro evolution is that DNA was designed to produce variation in species.


So there is no difference except you require an outside supernatural 'intelligent designer' to drive DNA mutation, and Science has shown that DNA mutation occurs naturally without recourse to supernatural intervention. Occam's Razor.



There is nothing wrong with my math.....it's not my math anyway....it's the
math of expert scientists and mathematicians.


Expert at convincing you that their conclusions are relevant to your agenda, maybe, but not expert at actually producing results that are relevant to Abiogenisis.



Like it or not, natural processes cannot cause non-living matter to become living organisms. The expert mathematicians have prove this as fact time and time again.

This is off topic, because we are discussing Evolution. If the mathematicians have proved it once, why do they need to keep doing it time and time again? Mathematics is the only science that actually produces proofs. The simple fact is that these 'experts' simply aren't solving the problem that you want them to solve.



Micro-evolution does not prove Macro-evolution.


That is absolutely correct. Micro-evolution IMPLIES Macro-evolution.



Macro-evolution is the fantasy that says multiple consecutive mutations (that are not harmful to the species) lead to speciation.


Wait. Didn't you just say you weren't defining Macro-Evolution?

From Macroevolution
Its Definition, Philosophy and History




In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [See Note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

(emphasis mine)
Note your part of the definition is no longer generally accepted. From the note to the above"


This is not because species do not change over time – some do. This is because there is no objective and common criterion for when a species has changed enough to count as a new species. The decision to count a species as a new one when there is no splitting of the species into two or more is a matter of personal taste or convention, which means that such decisions tell us more about the preferences of the scientist than they do about the organisms.


Ok, back to your regularly scheduled gumph.



Macro-evolution is Mathematically impossible:


1- Mutations are harmful. Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious impact on a perfect and complex structure will lead to destruction, not to improvement. In this respect, mutation in an organism is similar to, taking a microchip out of its place and throwing it away or mounting it to somewhere else in a computer. This only gives damage to the computer, not any benefit. This is just like how the mutations are; they seriously harm the genetic material.

2- As a result of mutations, no new additions are made to the DNA. Mutations can only tear or change the places of the existing genetic material. Therefore mutations can not produce new organs or characteristics for the organism.



That is just so much hogwash that it shows that the author has no understanding of biology at even the most basic level. Whom are you quoting by the way? It is no good marking something as external if you are so embarrassed by it that you can't even cite the author.

Mutations are not harmful, they just are. Some give the organism an advantage in propagating themselves, some don't, most are absolutely neutral. Punctuated Equilibrium depends on large numbers of accumulated neutral changes that "suddenly" become non-neutral in a changed environment .





3- Complex organs like the brain, eye or the reproduction organs, or characteristics like symbiosis or camouflage can unquestionably not be explained by mutations. It is illogical to claim that nearly forty organs from the retina to the eyelids which constitute the eye, can result because of mutations. In order for an eye to perform its function, all of its parts must exist concurrently and this is impossible by any spontaneous occurrence and without any conscious interference.



Yes they can. This has been demonstrated over and over again. Get over it.





4- Mutations has to be in the hereditary cells in order to be transferred to the next generations. ...



Correct. In the DNA. And we are talking about changes in populations, not individuals. If a change in an individuals DNA is useful, that change will spread through the population.



Fossilized reptile tracks have shrunk the evolution time line for the Cambrian Explosion(see source link below for the full article):

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction........................

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Incredible Shrinking Timeline


Have to get back to you on this one. Don't know about it.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Fossilized reptile tracks have shrunk the evolution time line for the Cambrian Explosion(see source link below for the full article):

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction........................

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Incredible Shrinking Timeline


OK, had a quick glance. My first impression is that it sounds like a case of Puncutated Equilibrium. I'll reserve judgment until more is known.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Please excuse my absence yesterday... I was sick to my tum tum.

Now, I have submitted several articles against the idea of human evolution and even more facts that have been completely ignored by the evolutionist. Not one person on this thread decided to step up and admit that, in that case, evolutionist screwed up.

What people don't seem to realize is that everyone has an agenda. Evolutionist are guilty of this also. Do you know what would happen if evolution was proven incorrect? Schools, museums, countries, colleges, and many other industries would loose billions of dollars. They have to defend the idea of evolution almost to the death. Right now in my spare time I am reading an account of an orthodontist that got access to Neanderthal skulls and observed that the data about the bite was incorrect. He took X-rays of the creature with the correct bite and he and his family were followed, stalked and barely managed to get out of the country with his data intact.

I will not post this information on here until I am sure that it is as true as anything gets these days. But I did want to just present the idea. Evolutionist have a lot more to defend than creationist. IF if turns out Evolution is correct, some people will still worship God. If the evolutionist are ever proven wrong... they loose everything... their credibility, their jobs in some cases, and their attitude.

Even when, as with the pigs teeth, evolutionist are proven wrong, they won't admit it. And in my local museum... there are "models" of many of the "evolutionary stages" that have been proven incorrect and in a few case, retracted.

I will admit SOME of the information on my OP was a bit shaky. I retract the "evidence" about the spider although whatever creature COULD still produce spider silk.

Oh, and that comment about being reviewed by other scientist... what hogwash! You do realize that there is hardly an evolutionist honest enough to give a paper that challenges their views a good review? The academic world has been taken over by evolutionist... elitist evolutionist at that... people that are so convinced of their superiority that they are every bit as bad as the catholics were just before the Great Awakening.

What I'm saying here is that the "data" might just be flawed. What I'm saying is that several "missing links" are nothing more than several creatures bones put together to LOOK like a missing link. There is a documented case where one year an apes skull was found... they searched around until they found another bone... a couple of layers away from the skull but found in the same "area" the bone found was a human femur. For YEARS this corpse puzzle was hailed as the "new missing link".
I ask you, is THAT science!?

One poster in particular changed his view three different times from what I could see. Saying that evolutionist never thought chimps was the ancestor of man? HOGWASH! If they never thought that, then what was all that crap I used to watch on National Geographic with Jane Goodall doing her level best to associate chimps with human behavior?!
Was I hallucinating?

Evolutionist pretend to practice scientific methods but the truth as I see it is... when it comes to missing links they are just desperately trying to put together a puzzle of bones and forcing the pieces to fit together how "they" think they should!

Did you know that the real "evidence" for evolution is locked up in the basements of museums where hardly anyone can gain access? Did you know that the skeletons on display as the "ancestors of man" at museums are nothing more than plaster casts of the bones that are then "filled in" to look correct for the public? Make no mistake. Evolution is an industry... and a large one at that.

What I'm saying is that the "fossils" found by palentoligist (sp) are rarely, if ever, examined by someone not "sold out" on the idea of evolution. If they didn't have something to hide, wouldn't they be willing to let others examine their findings? I realize in many cases that the bones are delicate but it should be common practice to have a creationist scientist (and yes, they exist) examine the data.
If I had found a convincing piece of data that proved something near and dear to my heart, I would invite all my rivals to see, and test and examine just so I could gloat. That's human nature.

This... hiding away of specimens... evidence... activates my BS meter... big time.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by sisgood]



new topics




 
16
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join