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: 347
31
<< 344  345  346    348  349  350 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Have you just admitted we evolved?
In a sarcastic way, sure.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Nope as I said one is wrong and the other is a lie here is what you originally said
I was referring to domesticated animals in one, and wild animals in the other.




The very next post you wrote
Ya I wasn't including domesticated animals.




Now both statements contradict each other and one also contradicts the bible you claim to be an historical document. Which means one is an outright lie.
No its just that I don't normally consider domesticated animals.




Again an outright lie and there are hundreds of pages proving it so
You are what you eat moron, if you don't eat healthy you won't be healthy.




Avoidance by claiming to have no knowledge is ....... a lie
No I honestly don't remember there diets.




It seems that way because you refuse to look at the evidence spoon fed you. PS you dont have the intelligence to 'make a metaphor'
Meh, you woudn't understand one anyhow.




Nope you agreed to the definition and I will hold you to it.
And there is nothing wrong with my definition




Yes, closed after one incorrect try. So you cannot supply any definition for the made up terms you insist on using.
Well I can direct you on where to look for them but I'm not going to supply them as I keep saying tooth wiki is closed. Just use google.




Still waiting for definitions of unnatural, redundant, redundant adaption, unnatural food and who but you could forget IN THE WILD.


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

There you go, thats all you need to get the understanding.




It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK
What do you mean you ask, your not asking, your telling.




HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????
Because you had said something in regards to ants using chemicals for processing food. I don't remember the details.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have already provided you with definitions which is why I will no longer, So I said tooth wiki is closed. I never said the regular wiki is closed.
And I said it appears tooth wiki is open again so why instead of the silly post you made did you not provide the definitions asked for?


All of which you can get the standard meanings from wiki yourself, because tooth wiki is closed.
Oh its closed again


Things you will say and do to avoid admitting you are wrong. I take it then you cannot supply these definitions because as we all know they are meaningless terms you made up to support your meainless fantasy


Your lying again. You were the one fighting me tooth and nail about how things are not in an eco balance and now you contradict yourself.
You keep pushing the balance thing to try to escape providing definitions it wont work. alll life being dependant on each other has nothing to do with balance. You failed again

You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????


Still waiting for definitions of unnatural, redundant, redundant adaption, unnatural food and who but you could forget IN THE WILD.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Have you just admitted we evolved?
In a sarcastic way, sure.
Told you already. You dont have the intelligence for sarcasm. You really should stop


I think you got a good point, and this is why I keep saying we should go back to the way things were prior to evolving because we were better off.
I dont see any sign of sarcasm in your post



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I was referring to domesticated animals in one, and wild animals in the other.
See what I meant when I told you once you lie you have to keep going. This is such an obvious lie you should feel shame. Your first post


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.
Your second post


Aside from humans, most things here have target food
Which one is the lie, they both cannot be correct.


No I honestly don't remember there diets.
Ignorance is no excuse.


And there is nothing wrong with my definition
Then stop trying to change the definition of 'target food' to suit your current silly argument.


Well I can direct you on where to look for them but I'm not going to supply them as I keep saying tooth wiki is closed. Just use google.
Because you cannot find anywhere those terms described and you havent the brain to describe them yourself


There you go, thats all you need to get the understanding.

Link 1. Unnatural. Links to a film, Alraune (1952 film) No definition there then
Link 2. Redundancy: It says for genetic redundancy

Gene redundancy is the existence of several genes in the genome of an organism that perform the same role to some extent. This is the case for many sets of paralogous genes. When an individual gene in such a set is disrupted by mutation or targeted knockout, there can be little effect on phenotype as a result of gene redundancy, whereas the effect is large for double or triple gene knockouts.[1].
Does not help your cause does it

There is also a long list of redundancy but guess what redundant adaption is no where to be seen.
Link 3. Adaption:

An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.
This does not help you at all. I see why you refuse to try to define your made up terms. You cant


What do you mean you ask, your not asking, your telling.
No I am and have been asking for an explantion, your the one not telling

It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????


Because you had said something in regards to ants using chemicals for processing food. I don't remember the details.
It does not matter what you thought I said the point is you came to a conclusion that is plainly wrong and this time I want you to explain how you decided it was natural when it is no natural at all, they dont harvest chemicals.

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





And I said it appears tooth wiki is open again so why instead of the silly post you made did you not provide the definitions asked for?
Well I gave you the tooth definitions and when you kept ignoring that I gave you to wiki.




Things you will say and do to avoid admitting you are wrong. I take it then you cannot supply these definitions because as we all know they are meaningless terms you made up to support your meainless fantasy
I'm not avoiding being wrong, I'm saying there is a difference between tooths definitions and wiki in that I'm just giving you my quick definitions.




You keep pushing the balance thing to try to escape providing definitions it wont work. alll life being dependant on each other has nothing to do with balance. You failed again
You mean you keep tyring to escape the definitions I gave you which basically put a nail in your coffin, so when you wouldn't accept them I gave you wiki's and those also put a nail in your coffin. Either way your buirried.




You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK
But what exactly are you asking because your saying here that you ask, but there is no question I find.. If its the same question about why did I think ants harvest chemicals, I have already answered that.




Still waiting for definitions of unnatural, redundant, redundant adaption, unnatural food and who but you could forget IN THE WILD.
LIsten Colin repeat, I have already answered all these. Thats your new name Colin repeat.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Told you already. You dont have the intelligence for sarcasm. You really should stop
What you meant to say is you don't have the intelligence to understand it, which is why you prefer I don't use it.

We were better off before, I was being sarcastic. OMG.
edit on 3-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





See what I meant when I told you once you lie you have to keep going. This is such an obvious lie you should feel shame. Your first post
So thats why you haven't been able to shut up, I get it.




Which one is the lie, they both cannot be correct
Well its common sense actually, domesticated animals don't have target food as we manufacture most of there food and its contents.




Then stop trying to change the definition of 'target food' to suit your current silly argument.
Oh its not changing its rock solid, but I honestly don't expect you to understand it. It is after all in depth.




Because you cannot find anywhere those terms described and you havent the brain to describe them yourself
Well no its just that after the umteenth time I don't feel like repeating them.




Link 1. Unnatural. Links to a film, Alraune (1952 film) No definition there then
Link 2. Redundancy: It says for genetic redundancy
Gene redundancy is the existence of several genes in the genome of an organism that perform the same role to some extent. This is the case for many sets of paralogous genes. When an individual gene in such a set is disrupted by mutation or targeted knockout, there can be little effect on phenotype as a result of gene redundancy, whereas the effect is large for double or triple gene knockouts.[1].
Does not help your cause does it
There is also a long list of redundancy but guess what redundant adaption is no where to be seen.
Link 3. Adaption:
An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.
This does not help you at all. I see why you refuse to try to define your made up terms. You cant
That would be because your to dumb to choose the correct definitions. You might want to check other definitions other than wiki as well.




No I am and have been asking for an explantion, your the one not telling

It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????
It wasn't a conclusion I reached, I thought you had said it.




It does not matter what you thought I said the point is you came to a conclusion that is plainly wrong and this time I want you to explain how you decided it was natural when it is no natural at all, they dont harvest chemicals.

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????
Again I thought you said it, I never reached a conclusion I was just repeating what you had said.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well I gave you the tooth definitions and when you kept ignoring that I gave you to wiki.
The tooth definitions were that of an imbecile. 'Close to the animals of the outdoors', 'Not in the outside' and that was your best effort. One link to an unrelated subject


I'm not avoiding being wrong, I'm saying there is a difference between tooths definitions and wiki in that I'm just giving you my quick definitions
It's like trying to talk with a baby. Your definitions you now seem to need to call tooths definitions did not come close to being a definition. You either need to find out what a definition is or you were avoiding giving clarity to your made up terms purposely. Quick definitions? I believe you meant thick definitions.


You mean you keep tyring to escape the definitions I gave you which basically put a nail in your coffin, so when you wouldn't accept them I gave you wiki's and those also put a nail in your coffin. Either way your buirried.
Only you have not supplied the information asked for. Another childish reply by you.


But what exactly are you asking because your saying here that you ask, but there is no question I find.. If its the same question about why did I think ants harvest chemicals, I have already answered that.
You must be the thickest person on the planet.

If I gave you a bowl of soup and you found lumps of chicken in it, then you could conclude it was chicken soup.


You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????

And dont mis quote my question again. I warn you failure to answer this question again means you came to your conclusion because you are a moronic, liar and not worth the time it takes to answer you idiotic dishonest posts


LIsten Colin repeat, I have already answered all these. Thats your new name Colin repeat.
You can keep your old one Pinocchio. The dishonest liar that lives in fantasy land



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Told you already. You dont have the intelligence for sarcasm. You really should stop
What you meant to say is you don't have the intelligence to understand it, which is why you prefer I don't use it.

We were better off before, I was being sarcastic. OMG.
edit on 3-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
Again you tell me what I am saying.

Let me put this another way. You are too stupid, and too dishonest to use sarcasm and I am not interested in being friendly with a pathological liar.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So thats why you haven't been able to shut up, I get it.
The site motto is deny ignorance and the the most ignorant person I have ever met. Couple that to your dishonesty and you become the lowest form of ignorance on the planet.


Well its common sense actually, domesticated animals don't have target food as we manufacture most of there food and its contents.
Not covered by your definition. So which one was the lie


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.



Aside from humans, most things here have target food
Answer


Oh its not changing its rock solid, but I honestly don't expect you to understand it. It is after all in depth.

1. Abundant everywhere or
2. cannot be processed in any way or
3. must be essential/necessary or
4. Not unnatural food (not defined so rejected)

Your definition I had to help you put together does not mention domestic animals. Stick to the definition or show yourself to be even more untrustworthy and dishinest


Well no its just that after the umteenth time I don't feel like repeating them.
You normally do not mind repeating you stupidity but in this case you have never supplied the definitions asked for. Your lying again.


That would be because your to dumb to choose the correct definitions. You might want to check other definitions other than wiki as well.
They were the links you supplied. Glad to see you agree they were useless.


It wasn't a conclusion I reached, I thought you had said it.
Had much more of a sad liar came you be?


Again I thought you said it, I never reached a conclusion I was just repeating what you had said.
Oh this sad. Dishonest to a fault



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I've heard of this imaginary childrens' fairy tale called "random natural-selection" and the unguided evolution of life once before, it was in a mother goose book I believe, and it was called "The Frog Prince". You know, where some frog magically turned into a human... except it is supposedly not magical and entirely possibly because it didn't happen instantly but rather over an enormous span of time.

Now, do I believe in evolution? - "yes". Do I believe it is random and not intelligently guided? About as much as I believe in the fairy tale of the "Frog Prince"! Can I prove intelligent design? Sure can. We are doing it right now in our laboratories! Can I prove this fairy tale called random natural-selection from pond scum to conscious human being? Yeah... It is all right here in my mother goose book. See! The "random-fairy", except we won't metaphorically personify him/her so we can claim it isn't a fairy tale (see- everything is alright now) turned that frog into a human, except it took the random-fairy millions of years - the random-fairy has a disease called "tortoiseitis". And look! I have apologists everywhere showing how my fairy tale is reality! Ain't I so much more clever than everyone else? Actually more "intelligent" than the majority of human beings on this planet! Gee.... I feel great about myself, being as informed and "edumacated" as I am!

I've never seen one species turn into another species (without intelligent intervention - direct or indirect) right before my eyes, and the majority on this planet can say the same. Non-intelligently designed inter-species evolution (one species to another) is a fairy tale, just like the Frog Prince. Show me evidence for one species turning to another in a controlled environment that has not been intelligently influenced or controlled. Show it to me! Use your controlled experiment to prove to me that intelligent control is not involved! Prove to me, using your intelligent controls, that macro-evolution can and does occur without intelligent control. Show me how the observer, or measurer, really is not part of the equation. In fact, since everything is so random, just wait until the answer appears before my eyes and don't bother saying a thing, since your language was created by intelligence too. Just allow me to magically see your side of things - randomly and all. Maybe you could just blow a kiss and I'll magically see the truth of your randomly ordered reality, if it remains ordered long enough for the communication to remain coherent?

You know, some virtual particle could just suddenly pop-up for random reasons and throw a wrench in the whole thing, so you couldn't really blame me for not seeing your way, right? Actually, if I don't see your way, it might just be causality, right? I might not have a chemical chance to understand your way... So you see, my opinion on it really doesn't matter, and you really can't blame me or think me anything for holding my opinions - since it is all causally determined by random events (at the core) anyway. I have no freewill and actual choice, right? That whole freewill and spirit/soul thing is all in my head, right?

So what do you care anyway? Why care? There is no truth - it is random, not absolute and necessarily "pre-determined". In fact, what the hell... causality itself is really a joke at its core since it surmises cause and effect without random events in-between and all. The fact is, there is no guarantee you won't levitate when you step off that ledge - it could happen. Of course, the odds are against it, but science says there is that chance it can and will happen, so why bother convincing anyone of anything or even arguing, since there are no absolutes? I mean, if science says that is the truth, and it does, then what in the heck is this so-called "proof" and what does that mean? Is it likelihood? Statistical anomaly? What is this thing called proof or evidence? What makes you think your TRUTH is not the fairy tale when your own "system" or supposed "intellectual evidence" says a television could "mysteriously" ooze through a wall into your front yard? Granted, it says the statistical probability is that it will not, but it says it can and will eventually if time is great enough... So how can you say God is a fairy tale and random, unguided evolution, over time, is the truth? You can't!

Why would you ask others to absolutely disprove what you cannot prove to be absolute fact? You can't even prove with 100% certainty you exist - it is an a priori Law of Thought which you must accept to even begin to reason, let alone use the scientific method. There is no scientific demonstration to prove your own existence.

I'm sick of people who believe so much in science that they think philosophy is out-dated and should be done away with, but yet are so ignorant they do not realize without certain philosophical BELIEFS there is no science. What is proof?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
 


I bet you're not as sick as we are of having to tell people to read the post and not just the title.

This thread is not about proving evoltuion wrong, that was a edit by the mods.

BTW, never having observed something personaly is not a reason to doubt its existence, you can rely (sometimes) on third party evidence/testimony. Otherwise, half the population of the planet could doubt the xistence of the other half.

Welcome to the thread



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I'm sorry, and I am certain you can understand. 300+ posts is a bit more like a book than a post. One can read any number of pages and feel they have something to say. I stand by what I said, but realize it does not necessarily speak to the full position of the topic.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The tooth definitions were that of an imbecile. 'Close to the animals of the outdoors', 'Not in the outside' and that was your best effort. One link to an unrelated subject
No I think wild animals came pretty close to describing in the wild. Probably a better explanation would be away from modern civilization but there you go.




It's like trying to talk with a baby. Your definitions you now seem to need to call tooths definitions did not come close to being a definition. You either need to find out what a definition is or you were avoiding giving clarity to your made up terms purposely. Quick definitions? I believe you meant thick definitions.
The definitions were quite short, clear and concise. I think your just being incredulous again, and had not other complaint options as you obviously don't.




Only you have not supplied the information asked for. Another childish reply by you.
When you have to lie the way you do, and claim that I have offered no definitions, thats truly sad.




You must be the thickest person on the planet.
Actually I was listed with a borderline genus IQ. But you on the other hand, is one that should worry. Not properly assembling questions and to top it all off not using correct punctuation, then turning around and trying to condition people to accept that as ok, tells me you seriously have something wrong with you.

You are obviously the type of person that when they don't get there way, you proceed to do the same thing over and over hoping you will eventually get the green light. Very sad.




If I gave you a bowl of soup and you found lumps of chicken in it, then you could conclude it was chicken soup.
If you trying to strangle me with words of creativity, you can stop. Your level of education could never surprise me. And since we are on the topic, what exact is that? Thats a question mark in case you don't recognize it, it means I'm waiting for an answer. I'm going to guess your sitting at grade school level. OK, sixth grade.




And dont mis quote my question again. I warn you failure to answer this question again means you came to your conclusion because you are a moronic, liar and not worth the time it takes to answer you idiotic dishonest posts
Well again as I have answered, and will continue to answer, I had thought you had said it at one point. Now I'm not sure what part of that you don't get but let me break it down for you so you can digest it easier. I never came up with that conclusion on my own, it was derived from believing that you had said it, in other words I didn't come up with it, there was something you wrote that made me believe I was quoting you. Lets recap to make sure you get it. I thought I was quoting you. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself but I'm beginning to realize that your ADHD is shinning through. They do have meds for this you know, and its very effective.
I would suggest a short trip on a short bus to a nearby counselor , as well as a psychologist so that you can get directed to some needed medication. Now in the mean time, I can help you out. Until your able to accomplish this, there is a quick fix. ADHD is basically the neuro synapses working to fast. What happens is your brain is just working to fast. So you need to slow it down. The medication prescribed for this is usually speed. Speed has an opposite effect in this situation. Now what this also means is you can do things like drink a sweetened soft drink or eat something with sugar to also slow down your brain. I strongly suggest this for you as your brain must be working on overload since I'm having to repeat myself over and over.




You can keep your old one Pinocchio. The dishonest liar that lives in fantasy land
Your fascination with fantasy and lying seems to be surfacing a lot, you will have to address this with your counselor when you get there. Sorry I'm not that advanced but can tell you its probably from abuse as a child. Maybe your parents lied to you a lot, I dunno.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Actually I was listed with a borderline genius IQ.


There, fixed it for you. Being (almost) a genius obviously doesn't save you from typos


If the above claim is true, your "genius" is definitely not related to biology or physics





Your fascination with fantasy...


That's rich coming from the guy claiming aliens "did it all" without having any objective evidence to back up those claims.

Look, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, but so far you haven't posted any credible objective evidence that would support you claims. All you do is repost unproven claims by Pye and quotes from the bible...a book that is FULL of inconsistencies and demonstrably wrong information. And that's ok...like I said, you can believe whatever you want.

But talking down on people because you think they believe in fantasy, while you yourself are believing in stuff that has no foundation in reality...well...that's hypocritical



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Actually I was listed with a borderline genus IQ. But you on the other hand, is one that should worry.



You're a very special individual toothy



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Again you tell me what I am saying.

Let me put this another way. You are too stupid, and too dishonest to use sarcasm and I am not interested in being friendly with a pathological liar.
Well I think you have been misled in the past once again because sarcasm has nothing to do with being friendly.

I think I can offer some help once again. This miss understanding is obviously from your friends always being sarcastic with you, so you have naturally tied these two occurrences together in some self made meaning. You may want to also address this with you counselor. I'm sure there is a diagnosis as well as some med management for you.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The site motto is deny ignorance and the the most ignorant person I have ever met. Couple that to your dishonesty and you become the lowest form of ignorance on the planet.
I think your discomboobalated and thinking that your being incredulous makes me out to be ignorant and dishonest.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but its obvious you have issues with honesty and ignorance. These are things you will have to once again address with your counselor. I'm sure it was something that happened to you as a child.




Not covered by your definition. So which one was the lie
That depends, if you want to consider domesticated animals as part of the wild life, then that was the incorrect one. On the other hand if you want to consider domesticated animals as not part of wild life then I would have been correct in saying some animals have target food.




Oh its not changing its rock solid, but I honestly don't expect you to understand it. It is after all in depth.


1. Abundant everywhere or
2. cannot be processed in any way or
3. must be essential/necessary or
4. Not unnatural food (not defined so rejected)

Your definition I had to help you put together does not mention domestic animals. Stick to the definition or show yourself to be even more untrustworthy and dishinest
Well there is another condition you need to address with your counselor, you have a propensity to assume things. I'm curious to know since it was my fault, at first which I'm admitting to not bringing up domesticated animals. Where did you classify them to start with. Did you assume they are also wild animals?

Your also making another assumption of not understanding unnatural food that its rejected. Just remember simply because you can't understand something does not mean it doesn't exist. It's even yet another subject you might want to address with your med manager. There must be a lot of things you simply feel don't exist since its obvious you don't understand many things, including how to use the general search on google for definitions.




You normally do not mind repeating you stupidity but in this case you have never supplied the definitions asked for. Your lying again.
Again I'm sure that med management will get you off this stuck train your on.




They were the links you supplied. Glad to see you agree they were useless.
If you honestly believe they are useless it confirms to me that you either had no idea of background of the use of the definitions and or you don't know how to use wiki. I'm going to guess both. This academic absence is not something that meds can help with, you might find yourself needing to take some basic computer classes. It's a good thing anyhow as you also don't use proper punctuation so maybe you can cover both bases at once.

I'm going to take a glance at all of the aforementioned and lean towards most of these problems stemming from a lacking education. It's pretty obvious since you also believe that a hypothetical theory of evolution exists in humans and all life which is documented as being false, and I have pointed that out to you dozens of times.

I can't offer much help here but can tell you that being severly incredulous probably stems from your parents lying to you while you were growing up. For example had they of waited until you were 18 to let you know that now that they are done raising you, you were actually adopted.




It wasn't a conclusion I reached, I thought you had said it.

Had much more of a sad liar came you be?
It must be difficult to think that everything passed to you is a lie. Now that I think about it, it could be a form of schizophrenia.




Oh this sad. Dishonest to a fault
I'm curious to know what your vehicle is to arriving to the conclusion that people are lying to you.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Your also making another assumption of not understanding unnatural food that its rejected.


For crying out loud, are you still going on with that nonsense


Pretty much everything we eat is natural, we just process it to preserve it, make it taste better, easier to cook, and a ton of other stuff that add convenience. We also have to mass produce food because of population food, but that doesn't change the fact that the cow you're eating is just as natural as you.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 344  345  346    348  349  350 >>

log in

join