For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right
That is not how evolution works. Read what about what evolution is. This myth of ''why are there still monkeys'' is such a cringe myth and sentence to say. I don't think people realize how stupid they sound when they say that. Just like the missing link myth. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I am a believer of God and I will always be until my very last breath. God is the reason why I am existing. He is the air that I breath. He is the giver of life, my healer, my provider and He's the one who provides all m needs to survive. He's the reason why I love to live life each day. How do you know? The real question is, do we really know anything?How many times do people forget their car keys and have to go back into the house or restaurant and get them? They knew they were going to go out to the car and get in and drive away, but it didn't work like that. They had forgotten their keys. How many times have people gotten into their car - or boarded an airplane - and knew they were going to their destination? But there was an accident. They wound up in the hospital, or morgue. We know nothing. How do you know that God doesn't exist to do all those things that Potatohead talked about? You don't know. You simply might believe that God doesn't exist. More than likely, it is only attempted belief in many ways. Now, here's the point. God works in the hearts and minds and spirits of those who believe in Him, to cause them to know that He is with them. Potatohead knows, but he knows by faith. Yet it is real knowledge as well as faith. Why? Because God is the One Who is holding the person in faith knowledge, and in knowledge faith. You don't believe, so you don't have God working in your heart and mind and spirit. Because of this, you don't (and never will) have knowledge that God works... at least not until you believe, and He comes to you. If you wait long enough, you will die without faith-in-God knowledge. Then at the Judgment, you will find out from God, Himself, that He exists, and would have worked with you if you had allowed Him to. But then it will be too late for you.  God has, I believe in him. what would our life be if we humans were not capable of any atrocities. If everyone is good.we will not be afraid of fraudsters , because scammers will not there is Our lives would be good? If everyone was good then our lives would be good, what is your point here? You would rather have scammers and fraudsters instead of good people? |
|
|
|
|
Better question would be, why do people think god exists in the first place if there is no proof of it? There are also thousands of gods out there and some of them do have genders so yeah.
|
|
|
|
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life. Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist. Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is? You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god. The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are: 1. Semantics; 2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything). 1. Transitional Fossils 2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors 3. Vestigial Traits 4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes. 5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.) 7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us. Astargath, there is no point using logic to denounce religious nutjobs, they are literally blinded by their faith. Save your time, and leave him to his ridiculous fairy tales, soon enough they'll be laughed at and humiliated for their beliefs. Yeah I see but it's just funny to me because most religious people actually believe in evolution now yet badecker still claims evolution is a hoax, even the fucking pope acknowledges evolution, I don't understand what he wants. |
|
|
|
However, it shows that the Creator is really powerful, and that He is very intelligent, and that He is a very capable designer, and a few other things, as well. Good place to start... with what science reveals about Him. Then, once you accept that He really exists, you can start to look for ways in which He might be revealing Himself to you in more detail. If you find enough of the right details, you might even find that He is offering you eternal life. How does it reveal there is a creator or a designed? I already explained you the problem with saying that nature is designed. How do you know nature is designed? |
|
|
|
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life. Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist. Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is? You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god. The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are: 1. Semantics; 2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything). 1. Transitional Fossils 2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors 3. Vestigial Traits 4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes. 5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.) 7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us. |
|
|
|
If earth really is flat. Then there should be only 1 island in total to cover from all the water in the oceans from not falling over the edge and fall into space? When explain this?  The Sun is a small object that orbits above us and the Moon is the same. The land (earth) was created as a flat plane** and the Sun and its thermal radiation warm a circular area. Beyond the reach of the Suns orbit is Antarctica and a giant wall of ice, a ring that holds the oceans at bay. If you travel far enough across the ice, many thousands of miles in the dark and extreme cold you come to an electrified dome wall. The electric field is (+) DC and trillions of Volts, biology and machines will be shut down by it if you get too close. I have to make some educated guesses here: ** Silicon-organic material was tossed into a giant wood chipper and the mulch packed together and sliced in half with a laser. Special giant trees high in nickel and iron were then grown on the plane and harvested for dome construction material leaving behind mountain ranges from the milling. The ocean floors were then excavated with giant excavators and an electrified golden reflective dome of nickel-iron Damascus steel was constructed. The Sun and the and Moon were then built inside the dome. Also beyond the dome is water. How come no scientist or anyone knows about the small sun? Everyone claims the sun is huge yet you claim is a small object, how is it possible that no one has noticed this before? Seems pretty strange to me. Have you traveled far enough to see the electrified dome, who has? There are people that know and people that dont know if your a scientist and want to progress to the top you have to blindly stick to the book if you let on that you know and start to profess then you will be called a lunatic and you will loose your job. This is the same in any field. The dome is ice. What is your point here exactly? You actually think the sun is small? There are hundreds of ways to prove that yet not a single proof. Don't be retarded, please. |
|
|
|
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life. Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist. Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is? You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god. |
|
|
|
I do not believe in god per say, the thing that always bothers me is that something always has to come from somewhere. Even if there is a god then where did he come from? Who created god? There's just no end to that question and it's really quite disconcerting.
My personal view is that our brains are not capable of understanding what's really going on or simply we don't have enough basic knowledge to imagine what's really going on, either way there is no point in claiming god exists because we don't really know. |
|
|
|
If earth really is flat. Then there should be only 1 island in total to cover from all the water in the oceans from not falling over the edge and fall into space? When explain this? The Sun is a small object that orbits above us and the Moon is the same. The land (earth) was created as a flat plane** and the Sun and its thermal radiation warm a circular area. Beyond the reach of the Suns orbit is Antarctica and a giant wall of ice, a ring that holds the oceans at bay. If you travel far enough across the ice, many thousands of miles in the dark and extreme cold you come to an electrified dome wall. The electric field is (+) DC and trillions of Volts, biology and machines will be shut down by it if you get too close. I have to make some educated guesses here: ** Silicon-organic material was tossed into a giant wood chipper and the mulch packed together and sliced in half with a laser. Special giant trees high in nickel and iron were then grown on the plane and harvested for dome construction material leaving behind mountain ranges from the milling. The ocean floors were then excavated with giant excavators and an electrified golden reflective dome of nickel-iron Damascus steel was constructed. The Sun and the and Moon were then built inside the dome. Also beyond the dome is water. How come no scientist or anyone knows about the small sun? Everyone claims the sun is huge yet you claim is a small object, how is it possible that no one has noticed this before? Seems pretty strange to me. Have you traveled far enough to see the electrified dome, who has? |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I am a believer of God and I will always be until my very last breath. God is the reason why I am existing. He is the air that I breath. He is the giver of life, my healer, my provider and He's the one who provides all m needs to survive. He's the reason why I love to live life each day. How do you know? The real question is, do we really know anything?How many times do people forget their car keys and have to go back into the house or restaurant and get them? They knew they were going to go out to the car and get in and drive away, but it didn't work like that. They had forgotten their keys. How many times have people gotten into their car - or boarded an airplane - and knew they were going to their destination? But there was an accident. They wound up in the hospital, or morgue. We know nothing. How do you know that God doesn't exist to do all those things that Potatohead talked about? You don't know. You simply might believe that God doesn't exist. More than likely, it is only attempted belief in many ways. Now, here's the point. God works in the hearts and minds and spirits of those who believe in Him, to cause them to know that He is with them. Potatohead knows, but he knows by faith. Yet it is real knowledge as well as faith. Why? Because God is the One Who is holding the person in faith knowledge, and in knowledge faith. You don't believe, so you don't have God working in your heart and mind and spirit. Because of this, you don't (and never will) have knowledge that God works... at least not until you believe, and He comes to you. If you wait long enough, you will die without faith-in-God knowledge. Then at the Judgment, you will find out from God, Himself, that He exists, and would have worked with you if you had allowed Him to. But then it will be too late for you. How do you know zeus didn't do it instead? How do you know the flying super unicorn didn't do it? How do you know the flying spaghetti monster didn't do it? We don't know when an accident it's going to happen simply because we don't account for all the variables but it's not magic. We have 0 evidence for any god, there is no point in believing in their existence, just acknowledge the fact that some god might exist but certainly not the christian one. |
|
|
|
I don't believe in an afterlife. After you die, it's over.
That's actually a ''religious'' view, basically. The real answer is that we don't really know. There is some evidence that supports your view but we are far from knowing definitely. Science still has a hard time studying the brain and specially consciousness, we are still far from knowing how it works so the question is still open. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I am a believer of God and I will always be until my very last breath. God is the reason why I am existing. He is the air that I breath. He is the giver of life, my healer, my provider and He's the one who provides all m needs to survive. He's the reason why I love to live life each day. How do you know? |
|
|
|
Stand on a high ground and look forward onto a ship. If it swims far enough you will defenitely notice that earth isnt flat at all.
Funny thing is that they claim ships do not disappear but when you tell them to prove it using a telescope or any device they will tell you that the atmosphere wont let you see far enough, bla bla. |
|
|
|
This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker. The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious. Props to you troll master. LOL
He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems. The only anonymous inter-webs characters I’ve ever seen use the Joe Cool smiley at the end of every post and never get upset when someone attacks them in a post are trolls. Real people become angered when someone attacks them or their beliefs. Trolls don’t because that’s exactly the type of reaction they want to get from the real people so they smile and move on. Could be but I think he is just too delusional and that's why he doesn't get mad. I believe his delusion is so strong that his brain just ignores good arguments and just keeps resetting. |
|
|
|
This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker. The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious. Props to you troll master. LOL
He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems. |
|
|
|
|
Are we going into 3 weeks? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
|
No I don't think cars or planes are accidents. I know they are human made but how do we know this? We know this by comparing them to nature. How do we know nature is designed or not? What do we compare nature to? You are assuming nature is also designed just because it's complex but that's not the method used to determine if cars are designed, we don't just simply look at the complexity of a car, we just compare it to nature to see whether it was designed or not. There is nothing that indicates complexity needs a designer.
|
|
|
|
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story. Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth. Thank you. Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves. I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results. But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution. Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer. There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales. If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both. As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations. You just flunked basic science. I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now. The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education. The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point. Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material. When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change. In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on. Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect. Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming. Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though. No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is. Why would you think the industrial revolution was a random event? There aren't any random events. There are only events that people call random because they don't understand what made them happen. Many people claim that parts of evolution are random. That's why evolution fails. None of it is random. ''RANDOM'' as not intended to make moths change color, are you dumb? The industrial revolution was caused by people, how does that change the truth that moths evolved or all the other animals evolve? That is your non-random, cause and effect response. Why would industrial revolution humans not be affected by C&E in their thinking, just the way we are being caused to post the way we are, by C&E? Because humans didn't have an industrial revolution purposely to change the color of a moth, that's why. The cause of the industrial revolution are humans and other things. That's the cause, the effects are many, one of them being moths changing color, I still don't see any problems here. What is your point exactly? Since cause and effect operates even on humans, humans DID have "their" industrial revolution purposely. The purpose and control simply weren't theirs. In fact, the main purpose might have been to change the color of moths for the main reason of our discussion, here, in this thread, in this forum. It doesn't matter though. What matters is that the moth evolved. That's our argument here, no? If evolution is real. It doesn't matter what caused the evolution, what matters is that things evolve. You believe in free will yet you are telling me that human actions are already pre destined? How does that work with your belief in God? I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
