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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 345
31
<< 342  343  344    346  347  348 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The trouble is you accept all the processes that other animals do as natural. So you need to explain more than I tooth rule it out.
Well the way to tell the difference is when they are redundant.




Then any animal with out a main source and there are many, have not got a target food. You are very dense.
Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.




But you chose the definiton for target for that contained the 'OR' option. Or means it only has to fulfill one item on that list. So you fail again even though you agreed to the definition.
I don't know what you mean by OR option.




Ok dip stick you eat toilet paper and toothpaste. I'll eat apples thanks
Do you feel there is something wrong with eating toilet paper and toothpaste, please explain.




You have proved yourself to be the most unaware person on the planet so your statement means nothing.
Then thank you for proving my statement, by avoiding an answer.




When you need a new shirt do you get your wand out. Clothesyartus. You could be the new Harry Potty
Sorry I'm not a big Potter fan, but I can tell that you are. This could be why your not able to understand a lot of things from wiki. Wiki is non fiction, not sci fi.


edit on 2-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well colin if your such a mind reader why do you need me to define things.
Quite simple actually. Because first. Your made up terms have no meaning hence you cannot define them. Second you are such a prolific liar that unless you are tied down to a defined term you will lie like a sewer rat and alter what you say they mean instead of accepting your wrong.


So you agree that clothing doesn't grow in the wild.
Again you are telling me what I agree with. What I dont agree with is they are made by magic.


Redundant adaptation means an excessive amount of steps are used just in allowing us to adapt. In other words we failed to evolve.
In other words if I am to take this as a definition Redundant adaption is a meaningless term. Thanks, now stop using it.


Quit being a stoop, anyone knows that a heating element in a dryer is not natural heat. My god how is it you understand evolution but not the simplest of things.
Explain how the heat in a dryer is generated.


If its anything more than one step, then its redundant.
You need to learn what redundant means.


If your trying to be an incredulous horses ass, your succeeding.
Why, because you claimed ants harvested chemicals. Why, because you still maintained that ants harvesting chemicals was natural even though they dont. I would call you a rear end but you know what. Most rear ends have more brains than you have shown here.


Not at all, I learned about speciation, microevolution and macroevolution, and after so came to the decision that the facts speak for them self. Evolution is not real. It doesn't apply to humans and its never been witnessed outside of some aquatic life, bacteria, viruses, and some insects.
Shame you cant and have not been able to prove it.


Just because your pretending to play stupid, and your not fooling me LOL, doesn't mean your right. You can ask the same pathetic questions over and over, they don't change. You can also pretend to not understand definitions when I have sent you direct links to wiki definitions. Just the most incredulous coward I have ever seen in my life.
And here you go crying like a baby. You ask the same questions over and over again and we are expected to keep spoon feeding you.

You gave the definition to the wrong thing. 'WILDLIFE' and 'IN THE WILD' are very different and then claimed it better than WILD which again is very different to both the others.

A definition is meant to define meaning. You have failed in the most tragic way because you dont even understand you have failed.


It's what you have resorted to since you couldn't win a debate with me, so you resorted to profiling me, and when that didn't work you decided to try to ignore the definitions.
You have never entered into debate. All you have done is offered unfounded rubbish and claimed it to be the truth and rejected all the evidence showing it to be false without considering it.

PS define PROFILING


Even worse is lying along the way, like saying we all live in the wild when the definition on wiki clearly says differently
Is diddums haveing a tantrum? I have never said we all live in the wild so yet another lie by you. And you have not given your definition of 'IN THE WILD'. Suck your thumb for five minutes. Maybe treat yourself to some toilet paper and toothpaste.


edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well the way to tell the difference is when they are redundant.
Learn what redundant means then come back to me.


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
Here you go again. You have spent over 300 pages ranting on about only humans have no target food and suddenly you change that because you are failing big time. Now maybe you understand why I want you to define 'target food' because in less than a page you will revert again to 'only humans have no target food'.


I don't know what you mean by OR option.
It was very clear. #1 OR #2 OR #3 (#4 ruled out, no definiton). You could have chosen #1 AND #2 AND #3 but you did not. That was your choice. So for an apple to be classed as target food by your accepted definiton it only has to tick one box. It ticked 2. It is target food.


Do you feel there is something wrong with eating toilet paper and toothpaste, please explain.
It would appear it is your target food. Enjoy.


Then thank you for proving my statement, by avoiding an answer.
To quote you. It did not have a question mark so why would I answer it?


Sorry I'm not a big Potter fan, but I can tell that you are. This could be why your not able to understand a lot of things from wiki. Wiki is non fiction, not sci fi.
I can seperate reality from magic, myth and fantasy which you have shown to be unable. Wiki also contains definitions but saddly none of your made up terms can be found there. Perhaps because they are sci fi


edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Quite simple actually. Because first. Your made up terms have no meaning hence you cannot define them. Second you are such a prolific liar that unless you are tied down to a defined term you will lie like a sewer rat and alter what you say they mean instead of accepting your wrong.
Sure and let me just take your word for that seeing how your the only one telling me this. I don't lie, but I have caught you in a few, and one is claiming that I never gave definitions, while your just not accepting them.




Again you are telling me what I agree with. What I dont agree with is they are made by magic.
And again your agreeing by avoiding the answer.




In other words if I am to take this as a definition Redundant adaption is a meaningless term. Thanks, now stop using it.
It's only meaning less to someone with a pea brain. And why is it your the ONLY one that isn't understanding it?




Explain how the heat in a dryer is generated.
Through electricity which is also generated by man made machines.




You need to learn what redundant means.
I see, and your going to teach me? No thanks, I know how to read and understand but I'll get back to you on that one.




Why, because you claimed ants harvested chemicals. Why, because you still maintained that ants harvesting chemicals was natural eve thought they dont. I would call you a rear end but you know what. Most rear ends have more brains than you have shown here.
Then why do you act like you just can't understand it.




Shame you cant and have not been able to prove it.
You can't prove something that has never been proven to begin with.




And here you go crying like a baby. You ask the same questions over and over again and we are expected to keep spoon feeding you.

You gave the definition to the wrong thing. 'WILDLIFE' and 'IN THE WILD' are very different and then claimed it better than WILD which again is very different to both the others.

A definition is meant to define meaning. You have failed in the most tragic way because you dont even understand you have failed.
Well its not that I failed it's more like you ran out of incredulous tactics.




You have never entered into debate. All you have done is offered unfounded rubbish and claimed it to be the truth and rejected all the evidence showing it to be false without considering it.

PS define PROFILING
No I'm not your wiki any longer, you can google it just like anyone else can. It's all the English language so you should , I stress should have no problem. I bet you will though.




Is diddums haveing a tantrum? I have never said we all live in the wild so yet another lie by you. And you have not given your definition of 'IN THE WILD'. Suck your thumb for five minutes. Maybe treat yourself to some toilet paper and toothpaste.
My definition of in the wild.

In the wild: To be anywhere in the outside, away from civilization, or closer to animals of the outdoors.

Thats your last tooth wiki for the month.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Sure and let me just take your word for that seeing how your the only one telling me this. I don't lie, but I have caught you in a few, and one is claiming that I never gave definitions, while your just not accepting them.
Everyone here has called you a liar and many times.


And again your agreeing by avoiding the answer.
You got your answer, you just did not like it. Shame.


It's only meaning less to someone with a pea brain. And why is it your the ONLY one that isn't understanding it?
Its pretty meaningless to you as well because you cannot supply a definition.


Through electricity which is also generated by man made machines.
Oh this is a special reply from you. So electricity in not natural? Is it electrickery? Machines, generators produce electricity because we know and understand how nature works. i.e. electomagnetic forces. All natural.

You really have no education at all do you.


I see, and your going to teach me? No thanks, I know how to read and understand but I'll get back to you on that one.
I see no proof of that. In fact I see the opposite but it is warming to see you are going off to learn about a word you obviously did not understand.


Then why do you act like you just can't understand it.
It is not an act. I do not understand how you can say that an ant harvesting chemicals is natural when an ant does not harvest chemicals. Please explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion.

I also do not understand how after all the times you have had the processes explained to you that ants do which you dismissed you can be so wrong to think ants harvest chemicals. Explain that as well.


You can't prove something that has never been proven to begin with.
Then why are you trying to disprove it? the same logic should apply.


Well its not that I failed it's more like you ran out of incredulous tactics.
Nope. You failed big time and. Define 'IN THE WILD' still waiting


No I'm not your wiki any longer, you can google it just like anyone else can. It's all the English language so you should , I stress should have no problem. I bet you will though.
Trouble is no one can google your moronical made up terms, not even you. They dont exist which is why you failed to define any.


My definition of in the wild.
In the wild: To be anywhere in the outside, away from civilization, or closer to animals of the outdoors.
Thats your last tooth wiki for the month.
Now that is pretty pathetic to be honest. Anywhere in the outside. Outside of what? Away from Civilisation. Your not going to like it but what do you call civilisation. Best of all. 'closer to animals of the outdoors'. Bravo. That is the thickest thing I have read since your last post.

What is 'closer to the animals of the outdoors'? That is the wording of a five year old and you think it is a definition? Surely not. Your pulling my leg.

edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Everyone here has called you a liar and many times.
Well thats pretty rich coming from you and considering that I haven't lied about anything.




You got your answer, you just did not like it. Shame.
Now your lying.




Its pretty meaningless to you as well because you cannot supply a definition.
My definitions are the same that wiki would offer. If you don't know how to use google, thats not my problem. I'm not going to feed into your delusion by not acknowledging my answers.




Oh this is a special reply from you. So electricity in not natural? Is it electrickery? Machines, generators produce electricity because we know and understand how nature works. i.e. electomagnetic forces. All natural.
Any moron knows that electricy that comes out of a light socket isn't natural, your just being a retarded ingus.




You really have no education at all do you.
I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural, unlike you. Were you born in a barn?




I see no proof of that. In fact I see the opposite but it is warming to see you are going off to learn about a word you obviously did not understand.
You don't see anything, you are the see no monkey, the hear no monkey and the I don't understand please give me your definition monkey. Either way you slice it, your a monkey.




It is not an act. I do not understand how you can say that an ant harvesting chemicals is natural when an ant does not harvest chemicals. Please explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion.

Oh well then I missunderstood, maybe the use chemicals, either way, its not how humans do it.




I also do not understand how after all the times you have had the processes explained to you that ants do which you dismissed you can be so wrong to think ants harvest chemicals. Explain that as well.
Probably because I had head it so much that I drowned it out now.




Then why are you trying to disprove it? the same logic should apply.
Thats just it, I'm not trying to disprove anything, I'm trynig to prove intervention.





Nope. You failed big time and. Define 'IN THE WILD' still waiting
Youll have to go back to the link I offered about wild animals, and take it from wiki cause thats the best your going to get.




Trouble is no one can google your moronical made up terms, not even you. They dont exist which is why you failed to define any.
I didn't fail, you moron, you failed to cover them up by being incredulous.




Now that is pretty pathetic to be honest. Anywhere outside. Outside of what? Away from Civilisation. Your not going to like it but what do you call civilisation. Best of all. 'closer to animals of the outdoors'. Bravo. That is the thickest thing I have read since your last post.

What is 'closer to the animals of the outdoors'? That is the wording of a five year old and you think it is a definition? Surely not. Your pulling my leg.

Well I guess I failed to realize that these terms don't apply to you because you grew up in a barn.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well thats pretty rich coming from you and considering that I haven't lied about anything.
Obvious and provable lie


Now your lying.
Nope. Your sulking


My definitions are the same that wiki would offer. If you don't know how to use google, thats not my problem. I'm not going to feed into your delusion by not acknowledging my answers.
You gave one definition from wiki and it was the wrong thing 'WILDLIFE instead od IN THE WILD' you have linked to nothing else. Before you try to spam a list remember I will read them so you better had as well.


Any moron knows that electricy that comes out of a light socket isn't natural, your just being a retarded ingus.
Correct. Only a moron would know electicity comes out of a light socket and only a real top notch moron would claim it is not natural.


I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural, unlike you. Were you born in a barn?
Again proving you have no education at all


You don't see anything, you are the see no monkey, the hear no monkey and the I don't understand please give me your definition monkey. Either way you slice it, your a monkey.
I take it you are having trouble with understanding 'redundant' or is it that you looked it up and found you have misused the word?


Oh well then I missunderstood, maybe the use chemicals, either way, its not how humans do it.
Not the point. You claimed harvesting chemicals was natural for the ant yet ants do not harvest chemicals. Again explain how you reached the conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?


Probably because I had head it so much that I drowned it out now.
Probably because you never took the time to read or understand the information spoon fed to you. You were to busy running from the truth.


Thats just it, I'm not trying to disprove anything, I'm trynig to prove intervention.
And failed big time


Youll have to go back to the link I offered about wild animals, and take it from wiki cause thats the best your going to get.
Aw come on. I really liked your version of 'In the wild'. What was it


My definition of in the wild.
In the wild: To be anywhere in the outside, away from civilization, or closer to animals of the outdoors.
Thats your last tooth wiki for the month.
Hilarious


I didn't fail, you moron, you failed to cover them up by being incredulous.
Provide links then


Well I guess I failed to realize that these terms don't apply to you because you grew up in a barn.
Please dont tell me you are going to defend that drivel?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I think this reply from tooth needs to be noted.


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
My reply:


Here you go again. You have spent over 300 pages ranting on about only humans have no target food and suddenly you change that because you are failing big time. Now maybe you understand why I want you to define 'target food' because in less than a page you will revert again to 'only humans have no target food'.
I would like to point out his little fantasy is crumbling.

He maintains 'he never said that all or even most others have target food'. So if now most others dont have target food which includes us where does that leave all his other arguments?

1. They dont know they are from here because they have no 'target food'
2. Because they have no 'target food' they have to eat the wrong food which will make them sick.
3. They have to process all their food because it is not 'target food'.
4. Those few that have 'target food' will find competition for it due to those without it eating that as well. So even those with target food will struggle, they may even become extinct if they alone cannot survive without their target food.
5. It may even be that evolution is driven by those with no 'target food' whereas those with target food have no need to evolve
6. They will have to drink milk because they have no target food. (even though they dont)

Or could it be as simple as there is no such thing as target food?
edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: forgot #6 how could I



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural,









Surely a science major wouldn't forget about these forms of "natural" electricity.....and yes they are EXACTLY the same electricity that comes outta the holes in the wall, ya know where you put the pointy things to make things go.

~ETA~

FYI....heat is generated by friction regardless of source, i.e sun, fire, hair dyer, rubbing your hands together. It all is a "natural" process, just different ways to get there.....




edit on 2-4-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 
Yep and electricity does not come out of any socket. It is the current that flows through a circuit. The element of an electric fire produces heat because it resists the flow of that current. As you say, friction.

All seems pretty natural to me. Nothing magical.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You gave one definition from wiki and it was the wrong thing 'WILDLIFE instead od IN THE WILD' you have linked to nothing else. Before you try to spam a list remember I will read them so you better had as well


en.wikipedia.org...

Heres wild, good luck.




Correct. Only a moron would know electicity comes out of a light socket and only a real top notch moron would claim it is not natural.
Electricty that comes out of a light socket is not natural you idiot, its not harvested naturally, its not controlled naturally, its not transported or delivered naturally.




I take it you are having trouble with understanding 'redundant' or is it that you looked it up and found you have misused the word?
Not at all, I allready gave you the synonym. I take it your realizing for the first time that maybe you were using the wrong definition of it.




Not the point. You claimed harvesting chemicals was natural for the ant yet ants do not harvest chemicals. Again explain how you reached the conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?
Thats what I remember you telling me, next your going to tell me its magic.




Probably because you never took the time to read or understand the information spoon fed to you. You were to busy running from the truth.
Well I do take anything from you with a grain of salt.




Please dont tell me you are going to defend that drivel?
Must be some truth behind it.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



en.wikipedia.org...

Heres wild, good luck.
You still dont get it do you? I asked for a definition of 'IN THE WILD' linking me to WILD is not that definition Jeeze tooth keep up.


Electricty that comes out of a light socket is not natural you idiot, its not harvested naturally, its not controlled naturally, its not transported or delivered naturally.
You really do not understand electricity either do you? For a start you do not harvest electrical power you generate it. Electricity does not come out of a light socket if it did a light socket without a bulb would mean you would have a puddle of electricity below it. Of course it is controlled you wingnut otherwise your supply would vary wildly. It is channelled via cables just as river water flows in a river. All natural.
edit: You dont think an electrical plant is something grown in a field, due to the term electrical field do you? Is this why you believe it is harvested. Surely not.


Not at all, I allready gave you the synonym. I take it your realizing for the first time that maybe you were using the wrong definition of it.
Keep digging the hole boy. I will be happy to put you in it. Define redundant. Define synonym.


Thats what I remember you telling me, next your going to tell me its magic.
Then you remember wrongly. That should not stop you from explaining why you said ants harvesting chemicals when they dont was natural or describing how you came to that conclusion.


Well I do take anything from you with a grain of salt.
So you did not read the information I provided on ants yet dismissed them anyhow. How dishonest.


Must be some truth behind it.
Only in your world sunshine


edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





He maintains 'he never said that all or even most others have target food'. So if now most others dont have target food which includes us where does that leave all his other arguments?
Well since no other species has the ability to adapt to the degree that we do, I would say it leaves us pretty well off.




1. They dont know they are from here because they have no 'target food'
Aside from humans, most things here have target food.




2. Because they have no 'target food' they have to eat the wrong food which will make them sick.
Humans yes, other species would become scavengers.




3. They have to process all their food because it is not 'target food'
Humans yes, I don't know of anything else that does so.




4. Those few that have 'target food' will find competition for it due to those without it eating that as well. So even those with target food will struggle, they may even become extinct if they alone cannot survive without their target food.
Well I'm actually impressed colin, I had no idea that you could see into things so well. This scenerio is possible but will most likely knock off the balance I keep talking about. This is entirly possible however but not necessary.




5. It may even be that evolution is driven by those with no 'target food' whereas those with target food have no need to evolve
If evolution was smart enough to identify the challenges, sure, why not. No proof of it but it is possible.




6. They will have to drink milk because they have no target food. (even though they dont)

Or could it be as simple as there is no such thing as target food?
Target food is based on the understanding of things being in balance. Things on our planet are not in a good balance so its hard to see what I'm saying here. The reason why this is the way that it is, is because there were several things, including humans that were placed here out of there element. This upsets the balance of the planet causing other things to fall off balance. It might even be that the normal rate of death as we know it with wildlife would not be so frequent had the earth not be out of balance.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


Right dude, like people harness balloon static to power appliances or harness lightning to run appliances, right.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


Right dude, like people harness balloon static to power appliances or harness lightning to run appliances, right.


Regardless of how you spin it, explain how any of this is disproving bio diversity without evolution.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


Right dude, like people harness balloon static to power appliances or harness lightning to run appliances, right.


To quote you again:



I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural







I have provided you examples of "natural" electricity and proven your statement wrong....admit it...........
Here's something more your speed, ya you can light a bulb from static electricity.....



I did this in 3rd grade...from what institution did you study to become a science major? This is a basic theory of electricity ( notice the word theory, just like evolution). The ( your) problem is becoming more apparent....you have no clue of the world around you. This is basic stuff man.....

Here's why we don't harness ( not harvest) electricity from lightning ( hint....it's not feasible at the moment)

source

Please explain why electricity is not natural? And if it's not natural, please explain why EVERY life form on earth and in the known universe, is dependent of bio-electrical charges to function. I.E brain synaptic functions, muscle contractions, cellular molecular functions, etc.

You really are a complete fool or just one of the best trolls I've come across......

You also do realize, that magnets are an expression of electrical charge as well? Please explain why compasses' work if there is no "natural" electricity?

Before you answer, remember this assertion and statement of fact of your's.....



I have enough of an education to know electricity is not natural


Electricity surrounds our Earth.....






edit on 2-4-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


Right dude, like people harness balloon static to power appliances or harness lightning to run appliances, right.


Regardless of how you spin it, explain how any of this is disproving bio diversity without evolution.


I'm afraid we're too late for that.....the rabbit hole is too deep with tooth.

~ETA~

Sorry Colin to get so offtopic, but I think you can sympathize with having to point out this nonsense....
edit on 2-4-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Regardless of how you spin it, explain how any of this is disproving bio diversity without evolution.
How can it when we aren't even from here.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





I did this in 3rd grade...from what institution did you study to become a science major? This is a basic theory of electricity ( notice the word theory, just like evolution). The ( your) problem is becoming more apparent....you have no clue of the world around you. This is basic stuff man.....
Only problem is evolution is also a hypothesis.




Please explain why electricity is not natural? And if it's not natural, please explain why EVERY life form on earth and in the known universe, is dependent of bio-electrical charges to function. I.E brain synaptic functions, muscle contractions, cellular molecular functions, etc.

You really are a complete fool or just one of the best trolls I've come across......

You also do realize, that magnets are an expression of electrical charge as well? Please explain why compasses' work if there is no "natural" electricity?

Before you answer, remember this assertion and statement of fact of your's.....
I never said it isn't, I'm saying man made electricty isn't natural.




Please explain why electricity is not natural? And if it's not natural, please explain why EVERY life form on earth and in the known universe, is dependent of bio-electrical charges to function. I.E brain synaptic functions, muscle contractions, cellular molecular functions, etc.

You really are a complete fool or just one of the best trolls I've come across......

You also do realize, that magnets are an expression of electrical charge as well? Please explain why compasses' work if there is no "natural" electricity?

Before you answer, remember this assertion and statement of fact of your's.....
Yes it does, and some of it is man made and some of it isn't. There is a big difference you know.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





I'm afraid we're too late for that.....the rabbit hole is too deep with tooth.

~ETA~

Sorry Colin to get so offtopic, but I think you can sympathize with having to point out this nonsense....
Simple, how could we have evolved when we aren't even from here?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 342  343  344    346  347  348 >>

log in

join