this is why creationists worry me. they agree that this is photoshopped, but argue that because its photoshopped, that means God exists? what? you disproved your theory that this was a real picture, thus proving Gods existence in the first paragraph of your own article, then went on multiple times in your own article and tried to say that you yourself disproving the authenticity of this picture (and other pictures like it) means that God is real and were all designed specifically by one entity. what??
Posted on: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:26:10 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015