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.

 

Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 20
6
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Sure, human milk, not cows milk. Cows milk is for cows.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids!
What a bad argument. That's like saying honey is for bees! We weren't meant to eat that! If milk is natural and contains plenty of nutrients to help growing kids, it doesn't matter what it was "meant" for. That's just you making wild assumptions again. Humans were never meant to eat steak! That's only for predators! Humans were never meant to eat nuts or fruit. Nuts and fruit are intended to grow new trees. You see how utterly silly you are being?




The adaptation of comercialized milk is not proof that we are supposed to be drinking it, just that we either choose to or can't find another reasonable suppliment.

There is no "supposed to". If it contains nutrients that are beneficial, it will benefit us to drink it. Commercialized milk is not proof that we are not supposed to be drinking it either.



It's typically thought by most, as I assumed you were thinking that babies need more milk, but thats false.

You assumed? No way!




First of all have you looked at a chart to see how much those offer, because when I last posted a chart, it said that these things could not offer the RDA unless you gorged yourself on them.

Prove it. Prove that a nutty salad twice a day with broccoli cannot account for our daily calcium intake. Please break down the numbers and show how its impossible to reach 1000mg without gorging.


News flash back at ya, Cows milk is NOT natural for human consumption, like I said earlier, if it were there would be teats on the top of the cow.

That's the dumbest logic I've ever heard. It is 100% natural. You cannot avoid that fact without lying about it.


Second news flash. The redundant processes that the milk goes through also don't allow it to be natural.


nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".


www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=B9wrUMW2NrDXiALU5ICIAg&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c07362cbb1 a&biw=1115&bih=541


Ummm, this was already addressed. We can drink unprocessed milk. STOP BEING DISHONEST and ignoring every single point that proves you wrong.

Target food = false
Evolution = true
Milk = natural
Tooth = demonstrably wrong is every single claim he's made.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You can't just make up random words and definitions. And you can't just make random claims that this MADE-UP word is now suddenly somehow a prerequisite for a proven scientific theory
I think its more that it obviously proves evolution wrong, and your concearned about that because you see the merrit in it.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So what exactly is your claim here, that ants are so much like humans that we must be related? LOL Colin there are a lot of different things that we share with so many species, its not proof of relation.

LOL only an idiot could deduct from what I wrote that I am claiming we are related to ants. Now let’s see how you answered my point. Ooops oh dear.
Well often times, your points don't make any sense.




Now supply the list of those other animals that both farm crops and livestock. You are doing exactly as before and avoiding putting evidence for your wild and frankly infantile claims.
Well crops could be like from bees, both in real crops as well as the honeycomb. I have heard of many insects that have farming qualities like bees, I know that spiders turn other species into zombies, there is also a wasp that turns roaches into zombies.




Hamsters, rats, mice, dogs, cats, all have areas that they prefer as living quarters and all have designated areas to use the bathroom.

none of the above both farm crops and livestock let alone go to war, take slaves or build cities. Try again
So I'm still missing your point, what do you think this proves?




The only thing that target food is going to show you, is that you are not from here if its missing and you have first ruled out extinctions.

How does it show you are not from here if you have no target food when even if you do have target food you may also not be from here. Or you may be from here but your target food is extinct. Do you not see what garbled, groundless nonsense you are spouting?
Because it proves that you got move here.




And by doing so your admitting that humans are missing their target food, so I was right.

Nope. If you were able to read I wrote there is no such thing as target food. Quite a difference. So not only are you wrong you show you cannot read. Ever tried school?
Your silence is admittence.




Well what this all comes down to, is if or not your going to be able to prove that those process were new or brought on through adaptation. In other words not natural. Maybe I missed something I thought the ants were extracting the honeydew from the aphids.

You spout even more garbled nonsense. Ants extract honeydew from aphids. Humans extract milk from cows. We both go through processes to do so. Explain.
But have you determined that any of the work done by the ant is not natural?




Ah yes, well its a lot easier to identify redundant processes with humans then it is with other life. Your going to have look deeply at the steps and determine if they are natural or not.

Nope. Your claim you supply the evidence that ants milking aphids and humans milking cows is somehow different. You still don’t know how to use the word redundant. Try exercising that lonely brain cell of yours.
Unless you can prove that the ants actions aren't natural, then they are different.




All that tells you is that he has his food, like I have explained,

So if the above is all target food tells you. How does target food show evolution wrong? The title of your thread.
Simply put, how can we of evolved here on earth, when there is obvious evidence that we aren't even from here. We don't even have our food to eat.




Evolution will remain an unproven threory probably for millions of years, until people start wondering why there hasn't been any way to identify it in such a long time.

That coming from a fellow that cannot show any proof of so called target food. Who cannot answer the simplest questions in support of it when challenged.

You made the claim in your title for this thread. Now show that target food proves evolution wrong.
And I asked you to prove the theory wrong by coming up with target food for humans. Your able to understand how it works with ants so I know you should be able to understand how it works for humans, as you should know more about eating for yourself than feeding ants.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





My question was 'Does the cultivation of the wing nut stop it being ‘target food’?


That all depends, on if or not natural measures were taken in the set up and propagation.

The wing nut plant cannot live without the intervention of the Wing Nutter. The Wing Nutter now cultivates the wing nut. The question stands and is unanswered, as usual.
That answer is not a simple yes or no, in fact its both yes and no. If the goat started to recieve a weaker food target, he would continue to eat it only to experience a reduction in his quality of life. So yes he would still treat it as a target food, and no it would not produce as well as a target food. It's instinct that tells a species what to eat, not the quality of life that it yeilds, which is also why the whole idea of a species eating what ever is around as being bogus. Thats a sign of desperation and that something is very wrong. As usual you fail at producing any food that humans instinctivly eat.




Does cultivating the wing nut mean it is no longer 'target food?'

Your non answer to the second scenario is just as lame as the response to the first.
Depends on if or not any of the natural qualities were offset in the process.




That depends, on if or not that loss of nutrients effects the goat.

The Silly Billy's target foods, target food no longer exists. Your criteria for target food are no other food is as complete or good. So the Silly Nit is not getting the same nourishment yet the Silly Billy is still eating his target food, the Silly Nit.

Is the malnourished Silly Nit still the Silly Billy's target food?
Lets say silly billy usually eats a specific insect for protien, but that insect has gone extinct. He's not going to be smart enough to start slaughtering cows for protien, but he might try and eat other insects. None of which will be as fitting. He's also not smart enough to know if there is a problem with his target food, unless its just no longer there.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You can't just make up random words and definitions. And you can't just make random claims that this MADE-UP word is now suddenly somehow a prerequisite for a proven scientific theory
I think its more that it obviously proves evolution wrong, and your concearned about that because you see the merrit in it.



How exactly do I see merit in it? I just told you it's a complete non-argument because it's MADE-UP


Your entire argument is equal to me claiming pixie dust disproves intervention



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well crops could be like from bees, both in real crops as well as the honeycomb.
Is English your second language as you seem unable to understand it or use it. Honey is not a crop. The ant gathering leaves, planting fungus, using pesticides to control pests and growing the fungus as a food crop is.


I have heard of many insects that have farming qualities like bees,
I asked for a list of examples not something you have heard. Do that.


I know that spiders turn other species into zombies, there is also a wasp that turns roaches into zombies.
Show evidence, don’t tell me what you think you know as that has been proven worthless. Where is the list of other animals that both farm crops and livestock?


So I'm still missing your point, what do you think this proves?
It proves you cannot show a list of other animals that farm both crops and livestock. It proves you make claims you cannot back up.


Because it proves that you got move here.
How does target food prove that when, according to you it does not show an animal is from here even if it has the fabled target food.

Explain how it shows an animal is or is not from here.


Your silence is admittence.
Another really stupid reply. How is stating 'target food does not exist and you cannot show otherwise silence?


But have you determined that any of the work done by the ant is not natural?
English must be your second language as you show no idea or understanding of it. You can quote the definition all you like but what you need to do is read it yourself. Again

An ant milks aphids, man milks cows. Explain.


Unless you can prove that the ants actions aren't natural, then they are different.
Nope the claim ants milking aphids and human milking cows somehow differs is yours. You show the proof.


Simply put, how can we of evolved here on earth, when there is obvious evidence that we aren't even from here. We don't even have our food to eat.
Show all this obvious evidence you have. You have failed epically to do so here and in the other thread.


And I asked you to prove the theory wrong by coming up with target food for humans.
Is there anything between your ears? Target food does not exist so how can I or anyone else come up with a target food?


Your able to understand how it works with ants so I know you should be able to understand how it works for humans, as you should know more about eating for yourself than feeding ants.
What is the target food for ants? They go through many processes to produce a crop which you claim is redundant and therefore means they and us cannot be from here.
Even you cannot keep up with the nonsense you spout.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
Sure, human milk, not cows milk. Cows milk is for cows.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids!
What a bad argument. That's like saying honey is for bees! We weren't meant to eat that! If milk is natural and contains plenty of nutrients to help growing kids, it doesn't matter what it was "meant" for. That's just you making wild assumptions again. Humans were never meant to eat steak! That's only for predators! Humans were never meant to eat nuts or fruit. Nuts and fruit are intended to grow new trees. You see how utterly silly you are being?
There has never been a shred of evidence that has conclusivly proven that cows milk was meant to be drank by humans. If it was, why does it get processed so much, obviously because its not meant to be. Processing is just our way of making something work for us that otherwise wouldn't. It is however a warning sign that something is very wrong. While goats milk is in higher usage around the world by comparison to cows milk, its the same story. Cows milk was meant for cows, human milk was meant for humans, goats milk was meant for goats, see the pattern here? It's a natural pattern.




The adaptation of comercialized milk is not proof that we are supposed to be drinking it, just that we either choose to or can't find another reasonable suppliment.

There is no "supposed to". If it contains nutrients that are beneficial, it will benefit us to drink it. Commercialized milk is not proof that we are not supposed to be drinking it either.
Well sure it is, we obviously werent meant to be drinking it naturaly as we have to process the hell out of it to make it safe for consumption.




First of all have you looked at a chart to see how much those offer, because when I last posted a chart, it said that these things could not offer the RDA unless you gorged yourself on them.

Prove it. Prove that a nutty salad twice a day with broccoli cannot account for our daily calcium intake. Please break down the numbers and show how its impossible to reach 1000mg without gorging.


The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of calcium increases with age.

· Children (ages 1-3): 500 mg per day
· Children (ages 4-8): 800 mg per day
· Youth (ages 9-18): 1300 mg per day
· Adults (ages 19-50): 1000 mg per day
· Adults (ages 51 or older): 1200 mg per day

www.sheknows.com...


List of Calcium content in various foods
Yogurt, low fat, plain, vanilla, coffee, 200g; 400 mg Calcium
Yogurt, low fat, fruit, 200g; 345 mg Calcium
Yogurt, nonfat, 150g; 200-250 mg Calcium
Yogurt, frozen, 240 ml 240 mg Calcium

Calcium fortified milk, 240 ml 400 mg Calcium
Milk, nonfat, 1%, 2%, whole, 240 ml; 300 mg Calcium

Cream, half and half, 1 Tbs 16 mg Calcium
Calcium Fortified Orange Juice, 240 ml; 300 mg Calcium
Ice cream, vanilla, 240 ml; 176 mg Calcium

Cheese, Gruyere, 25g; 287 mg Calcium
Cheese, mozzarella, part skim, 25g; 207 mg Calcium
Cheese, Cheddar, 25g; 204 mg Calcium
Cheese, American, 25g; 174 mg Calcium
Cheese, cottage, 2% fat, 240 ml; 155 mg Calcium
Cheese, cream, 2 T 23 mg Calcium
Macaroni and Cheese, 150g; 240 mg Calcium

Salmon, Canned, with bones, 75g; 185 mg Calcium
Rhubarb, cooked, 240ml; 174 mg Calcium
Oatmeal, fortified 240ml; 163 mg Calcium
Spinach, frozen, cooked, 240ml; 138 mg Calcium
Tofu, firm, 240ml; 258 mg Calcium
Almonds, 240ml; 92 mg Calcium
Beans, boiled, baked or refried, 240ml; 50 mg Calcium
Mustard greens, cooked from fresh, 240ml; 52 mg Calcium
Orange, 1 medium 52 mg Calcium
Halibut, baked, 75g; 51 mg Calcium
Kale, fresh, cooked, 240ml; 47 mg Calcium
Broccoli, cooked from fresh, 240ml; 36 mg Calcium (a good source of vitamin D)
Bread, whole wheat, slice; 32 mg Calcium


www.osteoporosisadvice.com...

First off by removing any processed foods, you see that you lose half this page. Salmon is the highest natural one on the list, and be prepared to be eating 5.4 servings a day just of salmon. It only gets worse down the list, like I said prepare to gorge yourself.

As you can see, aside from the processed food that we created from processed cows milk, we are obviously missing a natural supplement for calcium. Any questions?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





There has never been a shred of evidence that has conclusivly proven that cows milk was meant to be drank by humans.


What do you mean by "meant"??? Why does it require meaning?

We drink it because cows exist and their milk offers us nutrients. Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





News flash back at ya, Cows milk is NOT natural for human consumption, like I said earlier, if it were there would be teats on the top of the cow.

That's the dumbest logic I've ever heard. It is 100% natural. You cannot avoid that fact without lying about it.
Of course its 100% natural, for cows to drink, not for humans.

Cows milk aka cows muchous was by no means ever intended for humans to consume, your just sold on the product and the idea of its advent. There is no proof that we suppose to be drinking another animals milk, just think about how that sounds, drinking another animals milk, YUCK.




Ummm, this was already addressed. We can drink unprocessed milk. STOP BEING DISHONEST and ignoring every single point that proves you wrong.

Target food = false
Evolution = true
Milk = natural
Tooth = demonstrably wrong is every single claim he's made
So if your right, why is it that people in other countries arent drinking cows milk? How do you not know that goats milk was the milk meant for humans, OMG ROFLMAO. You will never convince me that humans are supposed to be drinking another animals milk, gross.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That answer is not a simple yes or no, in fact its both yes and no.
Ah I see. You have no answer so I expect a really garbled and stupid reply.


If the goat started to recieve a weaker food target, he would continue to eat it only to experience a reduction in his quality of life. So yes he would still treat it as a target food, and no it would not produce as well as a target food.
And here it is. You maintained that target food would contain all the nutrients needed. In this case it does not but now you say it would still be the Silly Billy's target food even though it no longer fits the bill.


It's instinct that tells a species what to eat, not the quality of life that it yeilds, which is also why the whole idea of a species eating what ever is around as being bogus.
That instinct you refer to is called hunger. When an animal is hungry it will eat whatever is available. We see this everyday so how is something we see and can relate to bogus?


Thats a sign of desperation and that something is very wrong.
Nope that is a sign of the survival instinct every organism has.


As usual you fail at producing any food that humans instinctivly eat.
Nope. As usual you have failed to answer the points I made. Try again: 'The wing nut plant cannot live without the intervention of the Wing Nutter. The Wing Nutter now cultivates the wing nut. The question stands and is unanswered, as usual.'


Depends on if or not any of the natural qualities were offset in the process.
Another failure to answer. This is your concept but you seem unable to resolve the simplest of questions. Try again.

Does cultivating the wing nut mean it is no longer 'target food?'


Lets say silly billy usually eats a specific insect for protien,
I already wrote. The Silly Billy eats Silly Nits as his target food.


but that insect has gone extinct.
Nope. My example was that the Silly Nits target food disappeared and he now eats inferior non target food. Try answering that.

Come on lad, keep up.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 
So let us sum up where we are now.

Target food

1. If you do not have a 'target food' then for some reason still not explained. You are not from here.

2. If you have target food you may still not be from here as the target food and its target food may have been brought here.

3. You may be from here but your target food is extinct, who knows, but makes #1 redundant I would think.

4. If the target food becomes degraded for any reason and no longer supplies all the needs of the organism it somehow is still target food. So target food may or may not fulfil all the dietary needs of the organism. The definition needs to be tweaked it seems.

5. If the recipient of target food cultivates it themselves despite the end result being the same it may or may not be target food. Or it still might be.

6. As no one can show an example of target food including tooth then by tooth's anti logic it must exist.

Let us ponder a while on the above. ............
..............
.................


How in the hell does that absolute childish nonsense prove evolution wrong



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





It's instinct that tells a species what to eat, not the quality of life that it yeilds, which is also why the whole idea of a species eating what ever is around as being bogus.

That instinct you refer to is called hunger. When an animal is hungry it will eat whatever is available. We see this everyday so how is something we see and can relate to bogus?
If you honestly think your hunger has no direction then explain to me why you never find yourself eating a tree?




Thats a sign of desperation and that something is very wrong.

Nope that is a sign of the survival instinct every organism has.
If humans found themselves eating trees from hunger, thats not a sign of survival, its a sign of desperation.




As usual you fail at producing any food that humans instinctivly eat.

Nope. As usual you have failed to answer the points I made. Try again: 'The wing nut plant cannot live without the intervention of the Wing Nutter. The Wing Nutter now cultivates the wing nut. The question stands and is unanswered, as usual.'
I probably forgot your steps, they all sound the same, not such a smart idea.




Depends on if or not any of the natural qualities were offset in the process.

Another failure to answer. This is your concept but you seem unable to resolve the simplest of questions. Try again.

Does cultivating the wing nut mean it is no longer 'target food?'
It depends on the processes used to cultivate it.




but that insect has gone extinct.

Nope. My example was that the Silly Nits target food disappeared and he now eats inferior non target food. Try answering that.
Then he would have a decrease in his quality of life, but might live, but not live as long.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Target food

1. If you do not have a 'target food' then for some reason still not explained. You are not from here.

2. If you have target food you may still not be from here as the target food and its target food may have been brought here.

3. You may be from here but your target food is extinct, who knows, but makes #1 redundant I would think.

4. If the target food becomes degraded for any reason and no longer supplies all the needs of the organism it somehow is still target food. So target food may or may not fulfil all the dietary needs of the organism. The definition needs to be tweaked it seems.
You would have to determine whether or not your target food is dealing with any extinctions.




5. If the recipient of target food cultivates it themselves despite the end result being the same it may or may not be target food. Or it still might be.
No if the recipient of a target food also cultivates that food and as a result alters the characteristics of that food, than it will not perform the same.




6. As no one can show an example of target food including tooth then by tooth's anti logic it must exist.
I have given you several you silly goose. Ants and the anteater, Kale and abolone, and millet seed for parakeets.




Let us ponder a while on the above. ............ .............. .................

How in the hell does that absolute childish nonsense prove evolution wrong
To answer that question, one only needs to ask, where our target food is. You sure haven't come up with any, and I would like to add the large fact that humans have the largest diet upon anything on this planet. You would figure it should be no problem coughing up some target food but yet you have been speechless about it. There is nothing else on this planet that compares to what we have in the diversity of a menu. We almost eat anything and everything. But still your speechless on what our target food might be.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Want proof that we are from Earth? The fact that Marijuana gets humans high is proof positive that we are from planet Earth?

Why?

Cannabinoids are the chemicals that get people high from Cannabis.

Cannabinoid receptors are located in our brain, and without these receptors, people would NOT get high.

Please explain how it just so happens that their is a plant on Earth, whose active ingredients fit the HUMAN brain like a set of keys! (cannabinoid receptors), if we are from a different planet!??!?!?!?
Ok you can't be serious. I know your just doing this to give us all a good laugh. OMG, really, getting high is proof that we are from earth. I'm just confused at what your connection is here.
Is it the need it fulfills for us to get high, therefore you know we are home. How do you even know that canibus is from earth. You know it does say in the bible that we have all herbs here. Now seeing how it also tells us that none of it is from our home, its obvious that it wasn't meant for us.

Puff puff pass, LOL.

Were you high when you though this up?


It was not a joke.

The way you responded shows that you can't read.

What I said about Marijuana applies to all drugs and medications derived from plants.

How is it that there are so many plants with chemicals on Earth that fit into receptors in our brain?

That is a serious question. It is the basis for all the life saving revolutions within the medical field in the last 100 years.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You would have to determine whether or not your target food is dealing with any extinctions.
So you cannot answer any of my points then
your incoherent and meaningless replies to both my posts is proof enough for me that you do not have a clue about the meaning of a term you made up. That's both hilarious and pathetic at the same time.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Ants and the anteater...


Which was debunked a few pages ago when people posted links showing how anteaters evolved


Once again, you simply ignore that evidence and prefer to believe in magic and fairy tales



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





It was not a joke.

The way you responded shows that you can't read.

What I said about Marijuana applies to all drugs and medications derived from plants.

How is it that there are so many plants with chemicals on Earth that fit into receptors in our brain?

That is a serious question. It is the basis for all the life saving revolutions within the medical field in the last 100 years.
Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So you cannot answer any of my points then your incoherent and meaningless replies to both my posts is proof enough for me that you do not have a clue about the meaning of a term you made up. That's both hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
I didn't say I can't answer, what I said was "You would have to determine whether or not your target food is dealing with any extinctions." Don't tell me what you want to hear, learn how to read.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Which was debunked a few pages ago when people posted links showing how anteaters evolved

Once again, you simply ignore that evidence and prefer to believe in magic and fairy tales
There has never been, nor will there ever be, any conclusive proof of anything evolving.

Now you might be sold on the fairytale but I'm not. All scientists have is speculation on how something evolved, there is never any proof. Did you not ever wonder why that is?

And I don't believe in magic and fairy tales, thats just bat crazy, I believe in the supernatural, there is a difference in case you missed it the last five times.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Which was debunked a few pages ago when people posted links showing how anteaters evolved

Once again, you simply ignore that evidence and prefer to believe in magic and fairy tales
There has never been, nor will there ever be, any conclusive proof of anything evolving.

Now you might be sold on the fairytale but I'm not. All scientists have is speculation on how something evolved, there is never any proof. Did you not ever wonder why that is?

And I don't believe in magic and fairy tales, thats just bat crazy, I believe in the supernatural, there is a difference in case you missed it the last five times.


Proof

Let's not pretend you care about proof if it disagrees with your fairytale religion. If you were honest to yourself you would jump off the empire state building because "gravity can't be proven"



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join