10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 26
28
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





In reguards to "climate change", that is a recent new term that replaced "global warming" since the whole "global warming" thing has been proven false.


Sigh. Wrong again. This is off topic, but...

"Climate change" INCLUDES "Global Warming" and other environmental changes going on, such as Ocean Acidification.

"Global Warming" has NOT been proven false, it has been CONFIRMED. It just isn't the whole picture, other climate effects are happening too.



[edit on 12/12/2009 by rnaa]


Anthropogenic Global Warming has been proven false. The earth has been cooling for 9 years. Fact. Go research. The earth is just as likely to be cooler in the next 50 years as it is to be warmer. This global tax on 'Global Warming' will work its way into the pockets of the few and is very profitable for them. You may believe in the theory of evolution but surely you haven't fallen for the Climate Change scam. A more accurate word for 'Global Warming' is international racketeering.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





In reguards to "climate change", that is a recent new term that replaced "global warming" since the whole "global warming" thing has been proven false.


Sigh. Wrong again. This is off topic, but...

"Climate change" INCLUDES "Global Warming" and other environmental changes going on, such as Ocean Acidification.

"Global Warming" has NOT been proven false, it has been CONFIRMED. It just isn't the whole picture, other climate effects are happening too.



[edit on 12/12/2009 by rnaa]


Anthropogenic Global Warming has been proven false. The earth has been cooling for 9 years. Fact. Go research. The earth is just as likely to be cooler in the next 50 years as it is to be warmer. This global tax on 'Global Warming' will work its way into the pockets of the few and is very profitable for them. You may believe in the theory of evolution but surely you haven't fallen for the Climate Change scam. A more accurate word for 'Global Warming' is international racketeering.


No, it was not proven false. But it was not proven true, either.
That the Earth is cooling for 9 years (just a little) is true, but 9 years is nothing. You need a few decades to say something significant.

The only fact is that global concentration of CO2 is rising rapidly, along with slightly increasing mean temperatures in longer time intervals (decades). Another fact is that global warming, if true, will lead to trillions of dollars worth of damage and destruction. Can we afford to do nothing? Can we even do something about it?





[edit on 13-12-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 





Anthropogenic Global Warming has been proven false. The earth has been cooling for 9 years. Fact. Go research....


OK, still off topic folks, but...

The only thing 'cooler' about the last 9 years is that they are cooler than 1998. In fact the last 9 years, while too short to draw conclusions from (though you insist on doing so) continues to define a warming trend. Please review this article: 2008 temperature summaries and spin.


...The last decade is by far the warmest decade globally in the record...


You are getting boring with your stuck record. Please fix it.

And please educate yourself about a topic before you try to discuss it.


[edit on 13/12/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 13/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind
 


No, you are wrong. The evidence is insurmountable. It's endless. Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it so. Perhaps you should gather all this evidence you surely must have (before making such a ridiculous statement), and present it to some biologists. If you are right, you would win all sorts of scientific awards and accolades.

But you won't, as you don't have any evidence, because evolution is rock-solid, and your thinking is anything but.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





In reguards to "climate change", that is a recent new term that replaced "global warming" since the whole "global warming" thing has been proven false.


Sigh. Wrong again. This is off topic, but...

"Climate change" INCLUDES "Global Warming" and other environmental changes going on, such as Ocean Acidification.

"Global Warming" has NOT been proven false, it has been CONFIRMED. It just isn't the whole picture, other climate effects are happening too.



[edit on 12/12/2009 by rnaa]


Anthropogenic Global Warming has been proven false. The earth has been cooling for 9 years. Fact. Go research. The earth is just as likely to be cooler in the next 50 years as it is to be warmer. This global tax on 'Global Warming' will work its way into the pockets of the few and is very profitable for them. You may believe in the theory of evolution but surely you haven't fallen for the Climate Change scam. A more accurate word for 'Global Warming' is international racketeering.


No, it was not proven false. But it was not proven true, either.
That the Earth is cooling for 9 years (just a little) is true, but 9 years is nothing. You need a few decades to say something significant.

The only fact is that global concentration of CO2 is rising rapidly, along with slightly increasing mean temperatures in longer time intervals (decades). Another fact is that global warming, if true, will lead to trillions of dollars worth of damage and destruction. Can we afford to do nothing? Can we even do something about it?





[edit on 13-12-2009 by Maslo]


You've been sucked into the media scaremongering. The underlying truth is, man made global warming is false, and the entire policy behind Global Warming is based on exaggerated computer models and tampered data to lure public opinion. This is widely known, and they wonder why there's conspiracy theories? They lie about the Polar Bears being wiped out and wonder why there's conspiracy theories? Come on man. If there's lies involved then they are hiding the truth. It's completely fraudulent.

Fossil fuels are harmless to the earth's ozone layer. Shock horror. Studies show the more fossil fuels you burn, the longer you live, the less fossil fuels you burn the less you live. So it is doing nothing to help the third world countries and is doing everything to help people like Al Gore financially.

If the Goverment was really that concerned with alternative energy sources they would've listened to Dr Eugene Mallove back in 2004 before he was mysteriously killed. He was weeks away from discovering a practical way to utilize cold fusion to resolve the entire world's energy problems. If there's one lie involved why should I consider anything else the politicians have to say? Go and listen to Lord Monckton, Margaret Thatcher's Chief Policy Advisor and he'll rip apart your belief in Global Warming within 5 minutes.

The truth will always have the upper hand and the lies will always be in the back foot. You can't change what is. However, if you're told it enough times you will begin to believe it.

PS. Sorry Mod for being off topic. This is my last reply on this


[edit on 13-12-2009 by IrnBruFiend]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend


You've been sucked into the media scaremongering. The underlying truth is, man made global warming is false, and the entire policy behind Global Warming is based on exaggerated computer models and tampered data to lure public opinion. This is widely known, and they wonder why there's conspiracy theories? They lie about the Polar Bears being wiped out and wonder why there's conspiracy theories? Come on man. If there's lies involved then they are hiding the truth. It's completely fraudulent.

Fossil fuels are harmless to the earth's ozone layer. Shock horror. Studies show the more fossil fuels you burn, the longer you live, the less fossil fuels you burn the less you live. So it is doing nothing to help the third world countries and is doing everything to help people like Al Gore financially.

If the Goverment was really that concerned with alternative energy sources they would've listened to Dr Eugene Mallove back in 2004 before he was mysteriously killed. He was weeks away from discovering a practical way to utilize cold fusion to resolve the entire world's energy problems. If there's one lie involved why should I consider anything else the politicians have to say? Go and listen to Lord Monckton, Margaret Thatcher's Chief Policy Advisor and he'll rip apart your belief in Global Warming within 5 minutes.

The truth will always have the upper hand and the lies will always be in the back foot. You can't change what is. However, if you're told it enough times you will begin to believe it.

PS. Sorry Mod for being off topic. This is my last reply on this


[edit on 13-12-2009 by IrnBruFiend]


I never said that I believe in man-made global warming, I believe in increasing concentration of CO2. Which is probably man-made and could influence climate somehow. But I dont believe in those catastrophic scenarios. On the other hand, if there is a speck of truth in it, then it will be costly. Very costly.
I doubt that if GW is true, mankind will have the balls to do something about it.

What on earth have fossil fuels to do with ozone layer? Those are freons..

Yes, its offtopic in this thread...

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





In reguards to "climate change", that is a recent new term that replaced "global warming" since the whole "global warming" thing has been proven false.


Sigh. Wrong again. This is off topic, but...

"Climate change" INCLUDES "Global Warming" and other environmental changes going on, such as Ocean Acidification.

"Global Warming" has NOT been proven false, it has been CONFIRMED. It just isn't the whole picture, other climate effects are happening too.



[edit on 12/12/2009 by rnaa]



If you research some other scientists besides the global warming or "climate change" nutjobs, you'll find scientists who will explain how the tilting of the earth's axis makes the cooling and heating trends on earth quite a frequent event. You'll also find that the earth does have means of purifying itself if it has a temperature. The earth has undergone many ice ages and these periods of global cooling actually purify the atmosphere.

I'm sure the scientists you look up and research won't tell you that but that's okay since you pass off any credible scientists who speak out against evolution (macro).



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).


This is not a problem for evolution. In the 150 years since Darwin many hundreds of transitional forms have been found. Darwin's publication was not the end of research, it isn't a sacred text that is frozen in time.

Here is an extensive, but not exhaustive, list of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils.

Here is another site with an example. Browsing this site starting at the home page is recommended, especially if you are new to the topic. There is an entire section on misconceptions.





The lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is a challenge for the evolution theory. According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. Small, gradual changes over millions of years have transformed previously existing species into new ones.

If this is the case, then numerous intermediary species must have lived and left behind fossils. In fact, the number of fossils of intermediary species should be greater than that of remains of present species of animals. For instance, many half-fish/half-reptile or half-ape/half-human fossils should have been found. Yet, more than 140 years of searching has not even revealed one transitional species. In contrast to evolutionists' claims, life has always appeared suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, writes in "The Nature of the Fossil Record" even though he is an evolutionist:

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments in his book "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade" as follows:

"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly…"
[Source]
www.albalagh.net...




[edit on 12/14/2009 by Locoman8]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 





The lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is a challenge for the evolution theory. According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. Small, gradual changes over millions of years have transformed previously existing species into new ones.

If this is the case, then numerous intermediary species must have lived and left behind fossils. In fact, the number of fossils of intermediary species should be greater than that of remains of present species of animals. For instance, many half-fish/half-reptile or half-ape/half-human fossils should have been found. Yet, more than 140 years of searching has not even revealed one transitional species. In contrast to evolutionists' claims, life has always appeared suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record.


No. There is no such challenge because there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record that is intact. There is no lack of fossil record.

That we have as large a fossil record as we do is extremely fortunate. From TalkOrigens Index to Creationist Claims: CC200.1 Transitional fossil abundance




  1. Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:

    • Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.
    • Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.
    • Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.
    • The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

    Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?

  2. Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground.

  3. As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode.

    As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions.

    Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that is where most of the paleontologists lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there.

  4. The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.

  5. Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which have the best record.

  6. If fossilization were so prevalent and young-earth creationism were true, we should find indications in the fossil record of animals migrating from the Ark to other continents.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


What don't you get about plagiarism being against the terms and conditions of ATS?

Please read this post: Posting work written by others

I'll give you points that this cut and paste job is not from a Christian anti-science site, but from an apparently Islamic one (unless of course that the site I found it on is itself plagiarizing the text from somewhere else).

Apparently your thoughts are so bereft of originality that you can't argue your own points without the theft of other peoples words. Is it really that difficult for you to acknowledge your sources?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


You are spreading outright lies. Here is a list of transitional fossils, and it's far from complete.

Technically speaking, every fossil of an animal with extant descendants is a transitional fossil.

You really should research topics before trying to show how they're incorrect.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


First off, it's not theft if it's put on the internet for the whole world to see and use. Also, I did add my source. I just merely forgot to earlier but thank you for reminding me. I'm not in the business to take credit for other people's works. I do know, however, that giving a source that may be religious in it's apparance is subject to ridicule by you or other evolutionists who give no credit to honest religious sites trying to give an alternative argument against evolution. I've already shown with the example of "global warming" or "climate change" how science can be misconstrued to fit a motive. I have reasonable knowledge behind myself but at the same rate, I am no scientist. I don't hae eloquite words to use or a college degree behind me to give myself credentials. I am a christian. And I'm not your everyday christain who believes what the majority believes. I don't believe I came from a monkey, or man-ape creature and there is no evidence to prove it either. I don't believe life on this planet was a mistake or "chance happening" as a majority of evolutionists would lead you to believe. There are too many occurences found in fossil records indicating that animals have continuously appeared out of nowhere and disappeared (extinction) with no solid ground for a gradual evolving to a new species. Through these few examples, I base my belief in Intelligent Design and a Creator. If I'm gonna get hounded by you just because you know how to use a search engine to find what I found and then ridicule me about it, then you have too much time on your hand. My source was from a 10th grader from an obviously Islamic school but the kid made a good argument and I used a small portion of his report due to the references he sited. I thought the references sited gave note to references suitable enough for ATS since that was the main point of my last post but I'll go ahead and give the little 10th grader full credit. I can see there is no light at the end of this tunnel of evolution vs. creation other than, how do you explain the very beginning of existence? Bye, bye now.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Lack of some fossils is not a problem for evolution, because it is expected for the reasons stated in previous posts, therefore it does not invalidate evolution.
Even now we have many transitional forms which cannot be just ignored, and thats just paleontology. What about evidence in other science fields?


[edit on 14-12-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completion. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions.
Source: Wikipedia

Don't call me a liar and then give an incomplete source for research.... especially when wikipedia is biased in their research as well.

The argument lies in the fact that if there are intermediate fossils or transitional fossils, they should be very high in number and should outnumber even current fossils yet the few that are found can still be considered questionable. Most of what was shown on that wikipedia page was a bunch of pictures, not fossils. There were some skull fossils but you would need more than just a skull to prove the ape to human theory.

Anyways, I'm done arguing this point. I'm tired of talking to a bunch of people who think they're inferior to everyone else because they claim to be 100% right. Have fun gloating in your lofty attitudes.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by davesidious
 

The argument lies in the fact that if there are intermediate fossils or transitional fossils, they should be very high in number and should outnumber even current fossils


You see? The argument is based on wrong premise.


Also, your "current fossils" already includes many intermediate fossils.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



Plagiarism is publishing work written by another without acknowledging the original author, thus claiming authorship for your self. That is theft.

It is also against the Terms and Conditions. You have done this twice in this thread alone, which demonstrates to me a pattern of laziness and intent to deceive.

It is interesting that I found it on an Islamic anti-science web site attributed to 'Harun Yahya', but the site you linked to contained the the exact wording attributed to Muneeb Baig, (Grade 10). FYI, I found it at EvolutionDeceit.com. I was not searching for the text in order to catch you out, I was looking for information on Dr. Ager, to establish context for his quote. There seems to be precious little on the web, except in one version of this text or another.

So you are not the only plagiarist to be pushing this particular barrow. I wonder where the original author is?

Why are you ashamed of your religion? I am not attacking you for it, nor would I even consider it. I mentioned that it was from an Islamic site only to point out the refreshing change from the 'usual suspects'. That doesn't make it any less wrong, however.

Anti-science campaigners, like you, simply refuse to acknowledge scientific answers, and seize on any snippet of controversy or uncertainty as evidence of the complete failure of science. But that is like saying that if a candidate doesn't get 100% of the vote that democracy has failed. The fact is that controversy and uncertainty is the beating living heart of science.

That scientists can disagree or continue to be troubled by reasoning that has ceased to trouble most of their community is a direct result of the openness and robustness of the scientific method. Debates go on in the scientific community for years about some topics, and topics in evolution are no exception. But there is no debate around 99.99999% of the theory, the debates rage around new data, new problems - the theory itself grows to meet new challenges.

If Dr. Ager is lamenting that we don't have the fossil record of every plant and animal that ever lived, he is not really any different than every other scientist concerned. But the fact remains that there are very good reasons why that is an impossible dream. And the fact remains that the fossils we do have, and we have many, many of them, tell a consistent story.

Evolution has happened and is happening.



[edit on 14/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Okay, you can stop labeling me as a plagarist. I did not post that report to claim the information as my own. I don't normally forget to put the source down but that's the beauty of the edit button. I'm happy to entertain you and give your science a beating heart but there are still too many unanswered questions for me to actually "turn to the dark side" and accept evolution as a whole. Not to mention, God is not questionable to me. I feel that the life that's all around me is the actual evidence of God's creation. How did it come to be? How did life all of a sudden just appear on earth? It all leads to God and most evolutionists are in the business of making God disappear.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Evolution has all the evidence it requires to be a scientific theory, that's why it is one. Your refusal to not accept it doesn't speak ill of Evolution, but of your nature.

You say it yourself - you don't want to believe in evolution because it, apparently, disproves God. That means you are not willing to learn, so you should save your breath, and everyone's time, and just stop posting to this thread, as there no amount of evidence presented to you will make you change your mind.

Deny ignorance!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by rnaa
 


Okay, you can stop labeling me as a plagarist. I did not post that report to claim the information as my own. I don't normally forget to put the source down but that's the beauty of the edit button. I'm happy to entertain you and give your science a beating heart but there are still too many unanswered questions for me to actually "turn to the dark side" and accept evolution as a whole. Not to mention, God is not questionable to me. I feel that the life that's all around me is the actual evidence of God's creation. How did it come to be? How did life all of a sudden just appear on earth? It all leads to God and most evolutionists are in the business of making God disappear.


If you have a problem with evolution disproving god, then I have an answer for you: en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution doesnt disprove god, only literal interpretation of the bible. The idea of god somehow setting the physical laws and starting conditions, so that the creation "created itself" can still be valid. And this way is more worth of god than what creationists teach, IMHO.

I remember this interesting quote from the bible, something along the lines of "the body comes from the body, and the spirit comes from the spirit" or "my kingdom is not from this world". Also, god gave us free will, which could mean that he created the physical world, but after the first instant he let it evolve according to starting conditions, not interfering (or only on the spiritual side of things).

This means that the realm of science and religion is different, and no conflict exist. Of course, when you think that he really created the universe in seven days, then there is a conflict..



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



Context surrounding the two quote mined comments.

Derek Ager was a paleontologist whose life work depended absolutely on the fossil record. What he saw in his work led him to disagree with 'gradualism' (slow change over long periods) as the only method of speciation in evolution. Instead, he noted that there does indeed seem to be periods of gradual change but there are also periods of explosive change. The idea was controversial for a time, most were convinced that gradualism could account for everything, the just needed more fossils. Over time, the work of Stephen J. Gould's on Punctuated Equilibrium explained the lack of fossils the gradualists couldn't find in a more elegant manner. Today both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are understood to both be important processes in the evolution of species.

It is important to note that BOTH Ager and Gould protested loudly that their remarks in the debate between the gradualists and the punctuationists were taken out of context and misused by creationists looking for a wedge to mislead people. Both were committed evolutionists that had a different outlook on how evolution worked and a different explanation for the thin fossil record in some instances.

You have deleted an important part of Mark Czarnecki's quote from the source. Even at that source, the quote has been altered, the sentence is prematurely cut off, for what purpose I don't know. The quote should read:


A major problem in proving the theory has been the "fossil record," the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God as described in the Bible.

(My version is from The Quote Mine Project

That you left of the part where Czarnecki is letting you know that he is about to address the creationist use of the perceived lack of variants is understandable - it is context you wanted to hide - but why do most quote miners leave off the "as described in the Bible" phrase? The Islamic sites I can sort of understand, but this quote is apparently wide spread enough to have attracted the attention of the Quote Mine Project. Perhaps the Islamic sites are the first to pick up on it and others are merely copying the same mistake.

Anyway, the original quote appeared in a Canadian news magazine (MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56) and is (apparently) a poorly written discussion of the (then) controversy over gradualism and punctuationalism. The article was so poorly written that it claimed that


Essentially, Darwin stated that a species evolved by the random mutation of genes, which then produced variants of the original species.


Clearly Darwin never stated any such thing. He didn't know about genes or mutation.

Neither Ager or Czarnecki is saying that Evolution is in trouble because the fossil record is incomplete. They are saying that maybe the explanation that the gradualists give for the incomplete record is not the whole story.

Punctuated equilibrium postulates that there isn't a detailed fossil record for all transitions because, in some cases, the transitional period was so short that there weren't enough individuals for a long enough period to end up someplace where fossilization was likely to happen.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join