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: 63
31
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Oh so your trying to say that evolution is a PROVEN theory? Can you give us a link that doesn't include statements like "in debate' or "inconclusive?" Cause no one on here has yet.

Please learn to read before you post. In the very post of mine that you quoted I said the following:


If you're referring to the theory of evolution when you say "it" in this context, then I'd agree with the first part of your statement -- it will never be a proven fact. No scientific theory will ever be a proven fact. Facts and theories don't occupy different levels on some hierarchy of information, they serve two totally different purposes and are two totally different constructs.

Did you somehow miss the part in my post, the post that you quoted in your reply, where I said the no scientific theory will ever be a proven fact?

Further, in a reply your earlier post where you made the exact same ridiculous claim, I gave you a link that explained the difference between the observable fact of evolution and the scientific theory of evolution. Here's a link to my reply to your post, and here's another link to the article I mention in that post:

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

You have now been provided twice with a link explaining why evolution is both a fact and a theory. I'm betting you won't read it this time either.


Ok I read them. I'm just a little stumped on how we evolved from slim in the short life span of this planet. Can you explaind that to me? And why our mtDNA is showing that we came into life all of a sudden about 200,000 years ago. Well I guess intervention would also be a fact and a theory as well because it also fits the guidlines.
Maybe we evolved on another planet cause its not looking like it was here.
edit on 9-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





They didn't say they threw gold in the air they said they needed it in their upper atmosphere to stay suspended as we all know today is fact.


What are you talking about??? There's no gold suspended, and it most certainly isn't a requirement. You might wanna read up on weather manipulation


You made fun of the Sumerians when they talked about the Annunaki needed gold suspended in their atmosphere. I guess you didn't go to the link I provided

www.rsc.org...

Then I asked you how such an ancient civilization could come up with such a crazy sounding story yet it is totally possible. I'm not talking about cloud seeding and weather manipulation, particulates can be suspended in the upper atmosphere. Here's a quote from that pdf: "Inorganic particulate matter that is raised to the atmosphere by both natural and artificial (anthropogenic) sources is mainly distributed in the lower troposphere. The upper boundary of the troposphere, the tropopause, is found at 11-17 km above the earth's surface depending on latitude.". Were you aware gold can be turned into powder? I asked you to explain to me how they could know something like that was even possible way back then or do you think it was all a coincidence and they just made it up?


edit on 9-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ok I read them.

I find that hard to believe given that you offered no comment on the content of the link I posted for you.


I'm just a little stumped on how we evolved from slim in the short life span of this planet.

You seem to be talking about abiogenesis with this statement. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis about the origins of life. Evolution is a scientific theory about biodiversity.


Can you explaind that to me?

Maybe you should do some reading on abiogenesis. It's pretty self-explanatory. If you'd like to discuss it after that point, we certainly can.


And why our mtDNA is showing that we came into life all of a sudden about 200,000 years ago.

Our mtDNA does not show that we came "into life all of a sudden about 200,000 years ago". From the common fallacies section of the Mitochondrial Eve wiki page:


One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time. Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. There may have been many other women alive at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, those lines of descent included at least one male, who do not pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, thereby breaking the line of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.

We can trace back to an earlier "Mitochondrial Eve" that is common to both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and, going back even earlier, a "Mitochondrial Eve" that is common to genus Homo and genus Pan.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Look at how much and how well we have evolved...
We went from swinging on trees and throwing poo at each other to jobs, fast cars and child support.
So well that we learned that seperating parents leaves the child stuck with mostly one parent.
If things were evolving so well, we wouldn't have the tem, "life is hard" would we? We wouldn't have things like abortions, that I just read about in another forum. You wouldn't read about people struggling with weight and diet issues because we evolved.
You might think that happened because we did it to ourselves by bringing in processed food. It's a good point but you have to realize there is a greater question behind that too. Why did we start making processed food to begin with.
It's because there are things that are lacking in our INTENDED diet. Probably not on this planet, and we are trying to substituit them with what we do have. But remember we are evolving right?
We aren't evolving here people. We are rejecting, and trying to adapt because we are failing at evolving. I know I have brought some of this up in the past, but I think some people still missed it.
Look at how we wear shoes and socks. If we had evolved, our feet would have morphed into accepting the terrain so that walking barefoot would have been normal.
However we failed to evolve so we had to adapt by making shoes and socks.
Social stigmas influence our parenting roles which I think is evil. Kids can be seperated from one parent which is unfair to the child. We failed to evolve so we adopted these social issues as the only way to adapt.

If we had actually evolved we would have morphed into a marsupial to make sure our kids are taken care of they way they need to be, instead we harvested a gross amount of laws and rules to work around the kids. We had to adapt and had no choice because that pouch or leash was never going to evolve into existance.

Our diet is so out of hand.
Some might think its because of all the poor choices that are being made. I agree both in the creation of most foods and user error. The problem that might be missed here is why this all happened to begin with. We have become so fasinated with adapting because its all that we do here, so we do it to our food too.

So think about this the next time your faced with a problem, do you just sit there and accept it the way it is and hope that evolution will kick in on a molecular level, or do you adapt to overcome the problem?

No one to this day has explained to me why we are the only species here on earth that wears clothing. I know in the bible it was first mentioned when Adam and Eve first appear naked and were asked do they not feel ashamed. It was a social cue being intorduced to the aleged first people here. Which makes no sense. This means that Adam and Eve Were NOT the first ever because they should have never have anything to be ashamed of.

There was life before Adam and Eve which once again suggests we aren't from here, Or they mixed with an existing species. Evolution is never mentioned in the bible, and if evolution is so possible why was it never brought up in biblical times. Why was there never a bible written for evolution. Why does it seem like we are missing trillions of years of changes required to make it possible. Honestly I don't see us being able to evolve to what we are today from primates in less than 4 billion years.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


All of the problems you cite are extremely recent changes in humans that have taken place over the last 10,000 years as agriculture allowed us to settle down in one place and develop civilization. It has basically zero to do with evolution.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


All of the problems you cite are extremely recent changes in humans that have taken place over the last 10,000 years as agriculture allowed us to settle down in one place and develop civilization. It has basically zero to do with evolution.


Your not undersatnding.
It makes no sense that we are evolving to get worse.
Is evolving to get worse or get better, or does it not matter.
What I read and understood from wikipedia is that changes would happen as needed.
Why are we needing to further ourselves from being cohabitants of this planet?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows
 


Look at how much and how well we have evolved...
We went from swinging on trees and throwing poo at each other to jobs, fast cars and child support.
So well that we learned that seperating parents leaves the child stuck with mostly one parent.
If things were evolving so well, we wouldn't have the tem, "life is hard" would we? We wouldn't have things like abortions, that I just read about in another forum. You wouldn't read about people struggling with weight and diet issues because we evolved.
You might think that happened because we did it to ourselves by bringing in processed food. It's a good point but you have to realize there is a greater question behind that too. Why did we start making processed food to begin with.
It's because there are things that are lacking in our INTENDED diet. Probably not on this planet, and we are trying to substituit them with what we do have. But remember we are evolving right?
We aren't evolving here people. We are rejecting, and trying to adapt because we are failing at evolving. I know I have brought some of this up in the past, but I think some people still missed it.
Look at how we wear shoes and socks. If we had evolved, our feet would have morphed into accepting the terrain so that walking barefoot would have been normal.
However we failed to evolve so we had to adapt by making shoes and socks.
Social stigmas influence our parenting roles which I think is evil. Kids can be seperated from one parent which is unfair to the child. We failed to evolve so we adopted these social issues as the only way to adapt.

If we had actually evolved we would have morphed into a marsupial to make sure our kids are taken care of they way they need to be, instead we harvested a gross amount of laws and rules to work around the kids. We had to adapt and had no choice because that pouch or leash was never going to evolve into existance.

Our diet is so out of hand.
Some might think its because of all the poor choices that are being made. I agree both in the creation of most foods and user error. The problem that might be missed here is why this all happened to begin with. We have become so fasinated with adapting because its all that we do here, so we do it to our food too.

So think about this the next time your faced with a problem, do you just sit there and accept it the way it is and hope that evolution will kick in on a molecular level, or do you adapt to overcome the problem?

No one to this day has explained to me why we are the only species here on earth that wears clothing. I know in the bible it was first mentioned when Adam and Eve first appear naked and were asked do they not feel ashamed. It was a social cue being intorduced to the aleged first people here. Which makes no sense. This means that Adam and Eve Were NOT the first ever because they should have never have anything to be ashamed of.

There was life before Adam and Eve which once again suggests we aren't from here, Or they mixed with an existing species. Evolution is never mentioned in the bible, and if evolution is so possible why was it never brought up in biblical times. Why was there never a bible written for evolution. Why does it seem like we are missing trillions of years of changes required to make it possible. Honestly I don't see us being able to evolve to what we are today from primates in less than 4 billion years.


Nothing you said has anything to do with the post of mine that you are replying to.

However the fact that we live fast lives has allowed the fast food industry to grow. It might not be for the best but it's what has happened and it has nothing to with evolution or perhaps in only as much as most countries these days are nothing if not super tribes and you can't feed a super tribe through hunting and gathering but only through an industrial process and it's called supply and demand. The available food supply is one of the main factors that will keep a tribe at a small size but with the ability of having a super food supply you then can have a super tribe but you don't need a super food supply unless you have a super tribe so they go hand in hand.. Anyway nothing you have said is an arguement against evolution.


Also we were never a monkey. We are a great ape. Great apes and monkeys have a common ancester. Who said we swung in trees and threw poo at each other? Your concept is a misconception as portrayed by the media at the time that Darwin released his theory. And your research into what it all actually means doesn't seem to extend beyong the misconception which had been incorrectly attached to what the whole thing actually means.
edit on 9-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by TheBar
I like to use the evidence i have at hand(literally) that helps back up and prove the primate theory.

Simply move your hand down your back until you reach a bone just just above and between your buttocks. You should be able to feel the Coccyx.

Evolution debunkers care to explain this to me ?
edit on 9-11-2011 by TheBar because: (no reason given)


And saying that. Those who don't believe we're a primate might want to feel that coccyx with their opposable thumb. Opposable thumbs are a signature feature of the primate family ->


In all honesty, not that I buy this but these two examples have to be by far the best I have ever read. Kudos to you man, and if our DNA wasnt so hacked up right now, I would be totally stumped and have to agree with you. Not so much on the opposable thumb but on the missing tail.

Evolutionists really win on the tail, not that Im convinced. I wonder if in our intended design maybe we actually have tails. I do remember seeing something on TV saying that in our early stage of development, we actually have a tail that can be seen.
edit on 9-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



The far off ancester who did have a tail was something like a tree shrew. There were no monkeys or apes back then. And from that tree shrew type animal two other forms of primates evolved. One line stayed in the trees and became monkeys. The other line came down from the trees and became the great apes. We are one of the line of those great apes. So we didn't come from monkeys or apes( and as people against evolution on here don't seem to understand that Darwin never said we do) but that all apes and monkeys share a common ancester and that ancester had an apposable thumb as do all primates today including us. The great apes didn't need the tail so it disappeard but we needed the apposable thumb as it was too handy to not keep hold of as far as evolution was concerned

Without the apposable thumb a monkey couldn't swing through the trees and their young couldn't hold on. A chimp couldn't poke a stick into a termite mound after peeling the bark off a branch . And a human couldn't build a 747.

Thank you for the kudos but the Coccyx thing, though I was aware of it, actually belongs to another poster. The thumb thing is my post add to it.
edit on 9-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
Barcs.... Wow you respond like a child.

Please read my words. I said I beleive, which implies that I am not certain. When I read something of interest I do not jot down where I read it.

Like I said it was years ago, not hours. Please be more intelligent when you post, and do not post like a little boy.

Get over yourself - people like you make this community a bad place to talk. I was not talking to you, but replying to another person.


I apologize for laughing at you. I guess I was a bit too hard on you, but if you read the previous 5-7 pages, you can see where its coming from. I'm not here to tell people what to believe or how to live their lives. I'm here to spread knowledge. I just thought your post perfectly summed up this thread and actually seems to point out a problem in society. People don't like to do their own research. They hear something from a friend and if they hear it repeated enough times it becomes "fact" to them. Many myths are created this way. This is what happened with the T-rex claim. You heard it somewhere and used it as an argument against evolution, in a thread called, "can you prove evolution wrong," without even taking the time to look it up first. It kind of sums up the understanding of evolution that many of the neighsayers seem to have. Now maybe I misjudged you, and this was just a slip up. I busted your chops over it because integrity is important to me . Listen, if you have any honest questions about evolution I'd be happy to help answer them or debate them. I've always enjoyed debating, but if you read some of the claims made and facts ignored in this thread, you'd probably understand where I'm coming from. I put a good amount of time and effort into my earlier posts, but most of it was completely ignored. The main purpose of this site is to deny ignorance, and there are many in this thread doing the exact opposite. I have a bad habit of being harshly honest sometimes, and it probably comes off as worse than it actually is.
edit on 10-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your not undersatnding.
It makes no sense that we are evolving to get worse.
Is evolving to get worse or get better, or does it not matter.
What I read and understood from wikipedia is that changes would happen as needed.
Why are we needing to further ourselves from being cohabitants of this planet?


Are you serious? 90% of all species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct. Evolution is not about getting better. It is simply gene frequency changes over time. If we change in a way that is detrimental to our survival, then we will die. At the moment, we reproduce fast enough with enough health to get over 7 billion strong. I'd say that's a successful species if there ever was one.

I think that's the biggest misconception about evolution. It does not mean better. It means changed.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your not undersatnding.
It makes no sense that we are evolving to get worse.
Is evolving to get worse or get better, or does it not matter.
What I read and understood from wikipedia is that changes would happen as needed.
Why are we needing to further ourselves from being cohabitants of this planet?


Are you serious? 90% of all species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct. Evolution is not about getting better. It is simply gene frequency changes over time. If we change in a way that is detrimental to our survival, then we will die. At the moment, we reproduce fast enough with enough health to get over 7 billion strong. I'd say that's a successful species if there ever was one.

I think that's the biggest misconception about evolution. It does not mean better. It means changed.


If that were true we would see early signs of molecular change happening in at least one of the 5 million species here on earth, and we don't.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your not undersatnding.
It makes no sense that we are evolving to get worse.
Is evolving to get worse or get better, or does it not matter.
What I read and understood from wikipedia is that changes would happen as needed.
Why are we needing to further ourselves from being cohabitants of this planet?


Are you serious? 90% of all species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct. Evolution is not about getting better. It is simply gene frequency changes over time. If we change in a way that is detrimental to our survival, then we will die. At the moment, we reproduce fast enough with enough health to get over 7 billion strong. I'd say that's a successful species if there ever was one.

I think that's the biggest misconception about evolution. It does not mean better. It means changed.


If that were true we would see early signs of molecular change happening in at least one of the 5 million species here on earth, and we don't.


Yes we do. We witness it in bacteria constantly, due to their high rate of reproduction. We witness it in the animals at the site of Chernobyl, which evolved to survive in the radiated area with things like 4-part hearts. We witnessed it when fish adapted to man-made pollution, now being born with a resistance (that means it became a part of genetics through selection). Humans have evolved in some parts of the world to be resistant to malaria, because the people without the resistance died, while the resistant gene passed on through genetics.

Evolution happens on a small scale and a large scale. The large scale is simply the look at millions of small changes as if they happened at once. Really, it is an extremely slow process, speciation, but it happened and continues to happen, albeit over a time period much longer than a human lifespan.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Yet another case of you ignoring people's replies to your posts with the information you're asking for.

You asked for the exact same information in this post. Varemia replied to you with this post, in which they provided three links to one example of a genetic change that we've observed to occur in nature in which a species becomes better adapted to their environment.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Of course there's particles in the air, but nothing suggests gold is in any way crucial for life as we know it. And as has been mentioned multiple times before, there's tons of places in the universe with more abundant gold deposits. Lastly, it's of course silly to claim humans were made to dig for gold by an alien race that's advanced enough to travel soooooooooooo many light years. It's a complete nonsense hypothesis that has ZERO rationality or logic behind it.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Humans have evolved just like all life forms...but of course there's always a struggle against nature. Overall, nature's stronger and it's a constant battle for survival. Just look at all the viruses and bacteria that are deadly to us.

Also, since the environment is constantly changing, so do life forms. The problem is, that evolution lags behind environmental change. It's not as if temperatures rises 15 degree Celcius, the very next generation of animals suddenly features less fur


That's why there's always a struggle. It doesn't invalidate evolution, it just means there's a lag between environmental changes and the evolution of life forms. And given the complexity of evolution, that shouldn't really come as a surprise.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I do not count the Bible as a source. It is no more an authority than a modern day fairy tale or fantasy novel. It is a collection of different beliefs construed to appear as if it were one. It also has no bearing on science, as has been proven in the past as the church has vigorously defended the Bible science, only to be proven wrong, time and time again.


If you think the whole idea of us having disabled powers sounds weird, here is a list of good reasons why...

There are seven reasons that suggest we have disabled powers.

1. In my over thirty years studying the supernatural and paranormal, I always thought it was odd that reports about other life that visits us, seems to always have special powers, and we don’t. Looking at this from the commonality of life, we appear to be missing some abilities.

2. There are multiple suggestions in the bible that also concur with us having ability’s removed from us, as a form of punishment. One of which is telepathy, and another called perceive. There might be others missing as well.

3. Vestigial organs are present in the human species, and could be part of some or our disabled ability’s.

4. Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.

5. The size of our head is not average by comparison to other life here on earth. In comparison to our body size, our head exceeds the compared percentage by anything else here on earth.

6. Lloyd Pye reveals DNA findings that could also support the idea of us having disabled powers. The first is that our DNA has been tampered with, and the second is the inverted sections, the third is the dormant unrecognizable sections.

7. Heightened remaining senses. We are the only species that has sex for enjoyment, as just an example. There are many things about are existing senses that could be overly sensitive as a result of missing ability’s.

While I have no proof that this is exactly what has happened, I also can't prove that monkeys can't fly. If some or all of these sound a little to hard to swallow I guess we can all just agree that they are one big fat coincedence.


I have to congratulate you on your determination. You continually post this list either in part or as above. It continually gets shot down and links provided.

So again in the spirit of this thread for a change dont just list the above 1 - 7 points. Back them up with links and/or examples.

BTW I can show you apes can fly. Go to any airport and you will see them 24 hours a day and we use knowledge and science to do it.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

You still haven't answered me. I was asking where this translation came from, and if anyone else has translated it that way. If only one man sees it as such, then perhaps there is another, more logical explanation?


I got it from Sitchin and I'm curious whether it is in one of the bibliographies in one of his books. I'm sure there are people out there who will say, translated differently it means they just wanted the gold suspended from their ceilings in things like chandeliers (did they have chandeliers back then?) or to gold plate their roofs or something more mundane. There are many others out there who also claim the gold was for Nibiru's atmosphere but I am not sure where all of them got that info.

I guess it boils down to whether or not you trust Sitchin. I don't for one minute believe he was in it for the money. I judge a book by its bibliography and his are impressive although I've never read any of them because they are all in other languages. Something to think about though is Sitchin wrote that back in '76 or so when particulate matter suspended in the upper atmosphere of another planet would be a preposterous idea to just come up with out of nowhere. Why not translate it like I suggested? Say they wanted to tile their roofs or make really tall hats out of it, but who would risk using such a crazy unheard of idea? How did HE know it was even possible at the time so why not play it safe?

Really though you have to take more than just a few details into account to figure this out. After originally being as skeptic as the next guy, as soon as I heard about aliens needing gold for their atmosphere so they created us as a slave race, I bailed on any further investigation. I passed it by and went looking at other subjects but kept coming back to it. Then read about seven of his books and decided it all made more sense than the typical nonsense you get from main stream science. The curious megalithic structures around the world and their ages are really about the best indicators for me. Even something as simple as the cylinders the Sumerians carved to roll over wet clay to make some of the tablets that have been found are made of hard stone and have very small details, that's another curious ability of a civilization that supposedly just walked out of caves. Some people may need an alien to walk up and shake their hand to believe they exist, I on the other hand want to be prepared psychologically by accepting their existence as fact now. It's not just the Sumerian subject, it's the totality of all the "outside the main stream psuedo-science" evidence that does it for me.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Of course there's particles in the air, but nothing suggests gold is in any way crucial for life as we know it. And as has been mentioned multiple times before, there's tons of places in the universe with more abundant gold deposits. Lastly, it's of course silly to claim humans were made to dig for gold by an alien race that's advanced enough to travel soooooooooooo many light years. It's a complete nonsense hypothesis that has ZERO rationality or logic behind it.


too much hollywood and anthropomorphizing in your reasoning. How did the Sumerians know gold could be suspended in the upper atmosphere of Nibiru or any planet for that matter? Did they just make that up? Did Sitchin just make that up?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Humans have evolved just like all life forms...but of course there's always a struggle against nature. Overall, nature's stronger and it's a constant battle for survival. Just look at all the viruses and bacteria that are deadly to us.

Also, since the environment is constantly changing, so do life forms. The problem is, that evolution lags behind environmental change. It's not as if temperatures rises 15 degree Celcius, the very next generation of animals suddenly features less fur


That's why there's always a struggle. It doesn't invalidate evolution, it just means there's a lag between environmental changes and the evolution of life forms. And given the complexity of evolution, that shouldn't really come as a surprise.


So I have never been able to get a clear answer on some things in this realm. Why did I choose to lose my body hair and wear a coat? Why did I choose to wear sunglasses. Why did I choose to live in a man made building that also have heat and AC? Why did I choose to work a job, to earn money to by food that gets planted, watered, harvested, shipped, packaged and processed to finally get eaten?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




top topics



 
31
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join