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: 412
31
<< 409  410  411    413  414  415 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Ya the problem is you have no clue what natural relationships are.
Regardless of your forced ideas man is a part of nature, so whatever spin you try to put on it only outlines your ignorance of the natural world.
Well on the contrary, its colin that has no clue. A natural relationship could be good or bad as long as there is a benefit somewhere in there.

I'm not seeing a benefit with wolves period, unless man feeds them.

With the bees we still have no direct relationship with them so it doesn't apply.

I'm going by the google definition, and I'm sticking by it to be accurate.
Anything that is caused or made by man is not natural.

Now this obviously means WE are NOT natural to this planet.
Your challenging me on this yet I don't see you coming up with anything that proves we are from here. I have issued a plethora of information that proves beyond a doubt that we are not from here including an obvious defintion.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
bacteria outnumber cells in the human body 10/1

and we aren't from here?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

evolution agrees with survival of the fittest


A misguided phrase coined by Spencer 20 years after Darwin wrote his thesis serves now to betray not only irony but your complete misunderstanding of what evolution is

you are here, alive, writing this, and humans aren't fit to survive on this planet?

organisms differentially reproduce, gene mutations spread if they confer any benefit to an organism, again because of differential reproduction

if you reproduce, obviously you are surviving, and fit enough to survive

the phrase is a blatant tautology, its like saying "red is the color red"



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Ya the problem is you have no clue what natural relationships are.
Regardless of your forced ideas man is a part of nature, so whatever spin you try to put on it only outlines your ignorance of the natural world.
Well on the contrary, its colin that has no clue. A natural relationship could be good or bad as long as there is a benefit somewhere in there.

I'm not seeing a benefit with wolves period, unless man feeds them.

With the bees we still have no direct relationship with them so it doesn't apply.

I'm going by the google definition, and I'm sticking by it to be accurate.
Anything that is caused or made by man is not natural.

Now this obviously means
Your challenging me on this yet I don't see you coming up with anything that proves we are from here. I have issued a plethora of information that proves beyond a doubt that we are not from here including an obvious defintion.

Your not seeing any benefits with wolves cause your not reading, understanding or just lying about the information. The benefits are clearly outlined in the links I provided.

Your whole bee argument your trying sell is just a joke and has been soundly panned over and over again. Get over it.

None of what you have posted proves "WE are NOT natural to this planet."
Just look at the human body and its own ecosystem, millions of bacteria and organisms call it home. You say not natural? not from here? Insanity- delusional at best.

Try again, this time use some objective evidence.
Thanks



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





A misguided phrase coined by Spencer 20 years after Darwin wrote his thesis serves now to betray not only irony but your complete misunderstanding of what evolution is

you are here, alive, writing this, and humans aren't fit to survive on this planet?
Then aside from water and air, can you come up with anything that ties us to this planet?




organisms differentially reproduce, gene mutations spread if they confer any benefit to an organism, again because of differential reproduction

if you reproduce, obviously you are surviving, and fit enough to survive

the phrase is a blatant tautology, its like saying "red is the color red"
Except that there is nothing that blatantly ties us to this planet.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Your not seeing any benefits with wolves cause your not reading, understanding or just lying about the information. The benefits are clearly outlined in the links I provided.
I think I'm understanding just fine. There seems to be a desire to find a relationship that never existed. Granted there are probably a few isolated cases where man and wolves were together for a short time, but cupboard love and inadvertant relationships do not count. I'm talking about relationships where they are natural. Meaning not forced or fed to sway them into a relationship.




Your whole bee argument your trying sell is just a joke and has been soundly panned over and over again. Get over it.
It actually is pretty silly as Colin once again tried to stretch the bounderies by claiming that bees have a relationship with man, when in fact they have a relationship with the crops. It's typical of what colin does and just goes to add more truth to my point, there is no natural relationship between man and any species here on earth, and the only ones he could muster he had to lie and stretch the truth about.




None of what you have posted proves "WE are NOT natural to this planet."
Just look at the human body and its own ecosystem, millions of bacteria and organisms call it home. You say not natural? not from here? Insanity- delusional at best.
Starting with clear documentation from the bible that earth is not our home, pretty much sums it up. In addition to the fact that we have no ties to this planet, but are being rejected by this planet. In addition to the plethora of things that are also telling us we aren't from here, including the definition of the word natural seperating man from natural events.

We aren't natural to this planet. Evolution is just a delusional method that tries to place earth as our home. People are so desperate to try to make sense of where we came from and who our relatives are. When I started reading bits and pieces of the bible, I wasn't looking for what I found, but it sure did peak my interest.

And we are NOT equipped or fit to be living on this plant. We have nothing in our physical make up that ties us to this planet. Not to be confused with us being stuck here. We are surviving while this planet is going through its 6th major extinction. We could be part of a 7th extinction when that comes around. The only thing that has saved our butts is our knowledge and adaptability. Including but not limited to our advanced medical sector, which has been keeping death temporarly at bay.

We only have 3 types of antibiotics. In the past when I would visit a doctor for an infection, a specific one was usually issued. Now two are issued because of new strains that have emerged. These new strains are the planets natural way to fight off infection. You see, as far as this planet is concearned, we are an infection that should not be here. The way I see it, is the we are not far from a major problem with medican.




Try again, this time use some objective evidence.
Thanks
I think the best objective evidence is the lack of any answers to the plethora of questions I have asked.
For example no one including yourself we ever able to come up with any species we have ties to on this planet. Not to mention its total nonsense to think that our whole life was suppose to evolve around wolves with all the intelligence we have. It makes no sense at all. At least if you believe we are suppose to have a relationship with wolves, which I don't.

No one including yourself was able to come up with any proof that ties us to this planet in the idea of food. Granted we eat just about anything, but does any of this food really rank high in the importance of what we need to be eating? There seems to be no intended food for us, but hey, how could there be if we evolved right? Its a wonder that ANYTHING has anything to eat if we all evolved.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Starting with clear documentation from the bible that earth is not our home.....


That right there is all you need to know about toothy.

You cannot reason with him, he won't accept evidence that conflicts with his worldview and hes massively dishonest.

He's not worthy of debate, not even to show others how foolish he and others like him are

Stop giving him and his delusions the time and attention he craves



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The writer obviously has convoluded ideas here. How is it that we supposedly had this excellent relationship with them, then the next thing you know, we are trying to eradicate them? It's obvious we never had the relationship with them that we thought we did. In other words we never did have a good relationship with them.
It may have escaped you but things change. We moved from hunter gatherer to farmer. We domesticated the wolf and the dog took over from the wolf leaving him solely as competition for game and our livestock.

Again. You have admitted that we had a relationship with them, good or bad, old or new. And that is all the relationship you told me I needed you to accept. ONE. So again you have lost this topic and should no longer try to state we have no relationships with life on this planet. If you do you are incredulous and dishonest. Unworthy of a reply.


Your article is a good example of someone sticking there own foot in there mouth.
Nope. It's an example of you refusing to admit what is staring you in the face.


It remindes me of the wiki on the 10% brain myth, its the same thing.
Deflecting the argument using the above is a fail.



Either way you slice it, we don't have that good relationship with them, and I believe we never did over 150 years ago.
Job’s a good one. You lost. Get over it and move on.



Well I never claimed that being adversaries is a relationship as well. I was only looking at beneficial ones that would count, I thought I had cleared that up a long time ago.
Yawn. You lost move on.


But only if they are civilized.
Another non answer.


Your neighbour appears to dispute your claim that humans are not natural. Bushmen being humans and now according to her are a natural occurrence. Thank your neighbour for me
Answer that and try to make sense.


No and there are a lot of things that don't come up with unnatural in front of them, but are considered to be because they are caused or made by human hands.
Nope. You ignorantly assume that but in truth the words you use like 'unnatural seeding’, ‘unnatural food’ etc don’t 'come up' on a search because they are meaningless terms. A misuse of English.


It's just a prerequisite that you have to program in your mind. That google definition is dead on by saying that anything human caused or human made is not natural.
You have been asked to provide the link, not repeat the same nonsense.


Again that only applies in your favor if you believe in evolution to begin with, which I don't.
So let's revisit your original statement.


But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.
You stated later that there was no way we could know if it was a designer or evolution. Obviously you were being dishonest because if you don’t accept evolution then you must believe it was created by design. Try to answer honestly this time. Show the evidence of that fact.


It could have just as easily of been creation that created those ties. If you didn't have that family, you would have just jumped over to the rat and made claims that was the next one in line that proves a connection.
Your problem is I do have that family, 'Catoridae ' and I didn’t jump over to the rat. I showed your claim to be false. Simple as that.



Try this one...
A broken link again. You see I find it hard to believe that you knew how to link before and now you are incapable of doing so. Supply the link.


Not at all, she agreed with me, but only if they are civilized.
What nonsense.


Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.
So what is it? Bushmen are considered civilised or uncivilised?


Well I thought evolution also agreed with survival of the fittest. All I"m saying is that we are not well equipped to survive on this planet.
Again 412 pages and you still come out with this rubbish.


edit on 9-6-2012 by colin42 because: Show the evidence of that fact.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I think I'm understanding just fine. There seems to be a desire to find a relationship that never existed. Granted there are probably a few isolated cases where man and wolves were together for a short time, but cupboard love and inadvertant relationships do not count. I'm talking about relationships where they are natural. Meaning not forced or fed to sway them into a relationship.


There is no swaying them they are doing what comes naturally.




It actually is pretty silly as Colin once again tried to stretch the bounderies by claiming that bees have a relationship with man, when in fact they have a relationship with the crops. It's typical of what colin does and just goes to add more truth to my point, there is no natural relationship between man and any species here on earth, and the only ones he could muster he had to lie and stretch the truth about.


LOL again ignoring the facts to fit what ever it is your stuck on.
"relationship with the crops." Priceless.. Who do think benefits from the crops? Bee and man mutually benefit from this natural relationship. This is just one example among thousands of natural relationships we have with millions of other organisms in this world including the ones in our bodies ( that you ignore).




Starting with clear documentation from the bible


Stopped reading after that line. NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.




I think the best objective evidence is the lack of any answers to the plethora of questions I have asked.


Wrong! Not only is it NOT the best objective evidence, it's not even evidence. Look up objective evidence definiton. You will see it's your plethora of questions that have none.




No one including yourself was able to come up with any proof that ties us to this planet.


Well then prove it.
Try again, this time use objective evidence to back up your argument.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I never said all of the bible was clear. What I said was its clear that we aren't from here. Again you cherry picked parts that didn't apply to what I was talking about, which seems to be all you do.


You dont read anything do you. At the very top of your quote to me you wrote:


Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.
So you cherry picked what you believe the bible to be and claimed Wiki supported you. I provided an argument that showed your stance false. It is not clear documentation by any means and certainly NOT supported by Wiki. Wiki is the source of the external text quoted in my post.

You certainly did not write


What I said was its clear that we aren't from here
What a fraud you are



edit on 9-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The writer obviously has convoluded ideas here. How is it that we supposedly had this excellent relationship with them, then the next thing you know, we are trying to eradicate them? It's obvious we never had the relationship with them that we thought we did. In other words we never did have a good relationship with them.

It may have escaped you but things change. We moved from hunter gatherer to farmer. We domesticated the wolf and the dog took over from the wolf leaving him solely as competition for game and our livestock.
Which is only a sign that we failed to evolve.




Again. You have admitted that we had a relationship with them, good or bad, old or new. And that is all the relationship you told me I needed you to accept. ONE. So again you have lost this topic and should no longer try to state we have no relationships with life on this planet. If you do you are incredulous and dishonest. Unworthy of a reply.
I admitted reading your source, not agreeing with it.




Your article is a good example of someone sticking there own foot in there mouth.

Nope. It's an example of you refusing to admit what is staring you in the face.
First off I haven't seen any proof that we even had a relathioship 150 years ago with wolves, it appears to be speculation.




Either way you slice it, we don't have that good relationship with them, and I believe we never did over 150 years ago.

Job’s a good one. You lost. Get over it and move on.
Oh I allready have moved on, but I haven't lost.




Well I never claimed that being adversaries is a relationship as well. I was only looking at beneficial ones that would count, I thought I had cleared that up a long time ago.

Yawn. You lost move on.
If you not understanding the points means I'm losing, then I would have to agree.




No and there are a lot of things that don't come up with unnatural in front of them, but are considered to be because they are caused or made by human hands.

Nope. You ignorantly assume that but in truth the words you use like 'unnatural seeding’, ‘unnatural food’ etc don’t 'come up' on a search because they are meaningless terms. A misuse of English.
So you only ever learned used sentances. You must have a limited vocabulary.




It's just a prerequisite that you have to program in your mind. That google definition is dead on by saying that anything human caused or human made is not natural.

You have been asked to provide the link, not repeat the same nonsense


www.google.com...=en&gs_nf=1&cp=12&gs_id=z&xhr=t&q=natural+definition&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=natural+defi&aq=0&aqi=g1g-s1g2&aql= &gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=55f1dbe328002a08&biw=1202&bih=584




But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.

You stated later that there was no way we could know if it was a designer or evolution. Obviously you were being dishonest because if you don’t accept evolution then you must believe it was created by design. Try to answer honestly this time. Show the evidence of that fact.
What I meant was either though the design of evolution or creation, I could careless which one you choose.




It could have just as easily of been creation that created those ties. If you didn't have that family, you would have just jumped over to the rat and made claims that was the next one in line that proves a connection.

Your problem is I do have that family, 'Catoridae ' and I didn’t jump over to the rat. I showed your claim to be false. Simple as that.
Proof is not relation though association.




Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.

So what is it? Bushmen are considered civilised or uncivilised?
She claimed they were NOT civilized.




Well I thought evolution also agreed with survival of the fittest. All I"m saying is that we are not well equipped to survive on this planet.

Again 412 pages and you still come out with this rubbish.
Someone on here was trying to teach that survival of the fittest is part of evolution.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





There is no swaying them they are doing what comes naturally.
There is nothing normal about cupboard love.




LOL again ignoring the facts to fit what ever it is your stuck on.
"relationship with the crops." Priceless.. Who do think benefits from the crops? Bee and man mutually benefit from this natural relationship. This is just one example among thousands of natural relationships we have with millions of other organisms in this world including the ones in our bodies ( that you ignore).
Your jumping around goal posts. The original question was about other species, not plants and food.




Stopped reading after that line. NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
Ignorance is bliss.




Wrong! Not only is it NOT the best objective evidence, it's not even evidence. Look up objective evidence definiton. You will see it's your plethora of questions that have none.
What your trying to say is that through your own ignorance, just like ignoring the bible, you have determined that its not evidence in your eyes.




Well then prove it.
Try again, this time use objective evidence to back up your argument.
It was allready proven over the tried 300 pages that no one could honestly come up with answers for.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





never said all of the bible was clear. What I said was its clear that we aren't from here. Again you cherry picked parts that didn't apply to what I was talking about, which seems to be all you do.



You dont read anything do you. At the very top of your quote to me you wrote:


Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.

So you cherry picked what you believe the bible to be and claimed Wiki supported you. I provided an argument that showed your stance false. It is not clear documentation by any means and certainly NOT supported by Wiki. Wiki is the source of the external text quoted in my post.

You certainly did not write


What I said was its clear that we aren't from here

What a fraud you are
Actually it looks more like you cherry picked parts that didn't agree. Just because I found sections that agree and you found sections that didn't doesn't mean your correct. They were two different subjects.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Nobody can prove evolution wrong just like nobody can prove evolution correct. That's why we still have these discussions. You don't see anyone genuinely trying to disprove that water can freeze, because it's a fact... something that evolution is not (creation as well). The title should be "Present your evidence against evolution".

I honestly don't know what to believe, but I do know that there's no way, with the current knowledge we have, I can believe fully, with no doubt, in one or the other (evolution vs creation). There are things about each one I can agree with as well as disagree with.

I can come up with questions like... since we haven't been able to prove 100% one way or the other, is that a sign that we aren't supposed to know? But that just leads to two answers, one supporting science and the other religion. Neither of which can be proven wrong or right... which in turn brings me back to that original question.

Personally I don't think either way will be proven 100% unless Judgment Day actually occurs. I believe in science, but it does have a history of later proving itself wrong, so many could use that as a reason to still deny whatever science "confirms".

I do like these threads, though, as they give me different points of view that I may not have thought of before.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Oh I allready have moved on, but I haven't lost.
(Yawns) You lost. Get over it.


So you only ever learned used sentances. You must have a limited vocabulary.
Nope. That's Sentences. If you mean I do not use meaningless jumbles of words as you do then yes my vocabulary is limited by the rules that govern English. Seems google agrees with me.


Again with the broken link. So more proof if any were needed that you were dishonest in what you claimed your definition stated. Hence the rule around sourcing your external text. That is about as low as you can get.



What I meant was either though the design of evolution or creation, I could careless which one you choose.
Nope. You claimed:


But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.
As I told you before many times. Facts are supported by evidence. You then claimed:


Again that only applies in your favor if you believe in evolution to begin with, which I don't.
You don’t accept evolution is the answer that leaves ID. Show those facts or admit error.



Proof is not relation though association.
I refer you back to the answer I gave that you should be addressing.



She claimed they were NOT civilized.
Nope you wrote she claimed:


when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances
So the Bushmen that are 'uncivilised' are natural occurrences. That must mean native to this planet. Everything that they do is natural. So what about the Bushmen that no longer live that lifestyle? Do they suddenly become not natural and not from this planet? Does everything they do become not natural



Someone on here was trying to teach that survival of the fittest is part of evolution.
I have been on this thread as long as you. I don’t believe you unless you provide a quote and reference the page.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





never said all of the bible was clear. What I said was its clear that we aren't from here. Again you cherry picked parts that didn't apply to what I was talking about, which seems to be all you do.



You dont read anything do you. At the very top of your quote to me you wrote:


Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.

So you cherry picked what you believe the bible to be and claimed Wiki supported you. I provided an argument that showed your stance false. It is not clear documentation by any means and certainly NOT supported by Wiki. Wiki is the source of the external text quoted in my post.

You certainly did not write


What I said was its clear that we aren't from here

What a fraud you are
Actually it looks more like you cherry picked parts that didn't agree. Just because I found sections that agree and you found sections that didn't doesn't mean your correct. They were two different subjects.
Nope. It means your statement that the bible is a clear historical document is false. Your statement that wiki supports it was false.

I don’t have to prove one way or the other in this. All I have to do is show your statement is in error which I did. Now you need to show where my argument is wrong or accept that you are in error. Failure to do either of those shows you are indeed a fraud.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ManiShuck
 
Hi Manishuck

First. The title of this thread was changed by the mods and is now misleading. The topic is meant to be about those that say evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see around us today without referring to evolution.

There should be no Evolution v Creation because evolution has nothing to say on how life started, was created. Just how it evolved once it did. Again this was meant to be about discussing other explantions for diversity.

Again. The title was not my choice and 'Can you prove evolution wrong' is ridiculous as you imply.


I do like these threads, though, as they give me different points of view that I may not have thought of before.
The reason for this thread.

To understand others explanations for diversity. Unfortunately this thread was infected and has become what you see today.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh I allready have moved on, but I haven't lost.

(Yawns) You lost. Get over it.
Double stretch, You still haven't won on any of our discussions.




Nope. That's Sentences. If you mean I do not use meaningless jumbles of words as you do then yes my vocabulary is limited by the rules that govern English. Seems google agrees with me.
I have never heard of "govern English" what exactly is that? I'm not able to find it in any dictionary so you must have made it up.




Again with the broken link. So more proof if any were needed that you were dishonest in what you claimed your definition stated. Hence the rule around sourcing your external text. That is about as low as you can get.
Nope, like I have written twice now, all you have to do is google "natural definition" and you will get it.




What I meant was either though the design of evolution or creation, I could careless which one you choose.

Nope. You claimed:


But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.
Of course because I'm indicating evolution to also be a form of creation DUH!




So the Bushmen that are 'uncivilised' are natural occurrences. That must mean native to this planet. Everything that they do is natural. So what about the Bushmen that no longer live that lifestyle? Do they suddenly become not natural and not from this planet? Does everything they do become not natura
Its a good observation and obviously why I don't agree with the whole civilized part making the decision.




Someone on here was trying to teach that survival of the fittest is part of evolution.

I have been on this thread as long as you. I don’t believe you unless you provide a quote and reference the page.
It's been more than one person, and long ago.




Nope. It means your statement that the bible is a clear historical document is false. Your statement that wiki supports it was false.
Not at all, in fact I linked it, you will have to go back and get the link, I'm not researching it again. It clearly states that according to wiki the bible is a historical document.




I don’t have to prove one way or the other in this. All I have to do is show your statement is in error which I did. Now you need to show where my argument is wrong or accept that you are in error. Failure to do either of those shows you are indeed a fraud.
The only thing you have done which is the same thing you always do, is show how you can fit both feet in your mouth at the same time. You haven't proven anything.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There is nothing normal about cupboard love.


What are you talking about? what does this nonsense have to do with man having a relationship with wolves.
You can't back up anything you say- this is how you deflect.
Classic tooth




Your jumping around goal posts. The original question was about other species, not plants and food.

How ironic coming from a guy who thinks he's being clever by misdirection on every point

Your the one that brought up "relationship with the crops." FYI plants and food are species in one form or another but don't let me confuse you with facts. My bad we all know this is not possible




Ignorance is bliss.

More irony coming from the guy who sites the bible as objective evidence.
Priceless.



What your trying to say is that through your own ignorance, just like ignoring the bible, you have determined that its not evidence in your eyes.

Don't tell me what I'm trying to say I know full well what I have written your the one who is clueless about the conversation.
People who are capable of criticle thinking have dismissed the bible as evidence not just me.



It was allready proven over the tried 300 pages that no one could honestly come up with answers for.

You call this proof
I have read the whole thread your gonna have to link your proof post. If anything you will show us proof again

edit on 9-6-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   


To understand others explanations for diversity. Unfortunately this thread was infected and has become what you see today.
reply to post by colin42
 


It would be nice if we could see some real debating your original OP but now we are stuck in this endless game of worthless semantics.
Maybe it's time to ignore him so he will go embarrass himself in another thread.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 409  410  411    413  414  415 >>

log in

join