Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Hi Colin et al.,

Give it up, guys. I admire your persistence and I can't believe you've been this patient, but this is going nowhere. As Oscar Wilde put it, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. There's no use being a damned fool about it."

Toothy and the others won't make any attempt to learn anything that doesn't fit into their cozy world view, and there's nothing you can do about that. You've done what you can, and now you should just move on.

Just my two cents.

]

I'm agreed with you. Itsthetooth has been bringing up arguments that we explained and supported with hard evidence far earlier in the thread. It's as if his brain is on a creationism/alien-implantation time loop.

Agreed! There are more productive ways to use ATP.

Yep my last couple of posts were house keeping before I shut shop to be honest. I'm done.

(Walks into the distance with his trusty Anteater by his side)

reply to post by idmonster

I am glad I've finaly managed convince you.

So we all agree evolutionISM, is a misguided belief system that attempts to explain the course of evolution

So we can drop the term now and discus evolution.

No need to apologise this time, I can see where you've been purposefully misled by whichever church elders poisoned your mind.

well then it would have had to of been through the church of evoltuionism, right here on ATS.

reply to post by idmonster

BTW you did read the post, right? You are now aware of the difference between evolution and evolutionism?

If you havnt read the post, do not reply to this post, it would be a waste of yours and my time. If you have read it and intend to reply to this post with a quote, please quote this post in its entirety to remove accusations of quote mining.

The only thing you made me aware of is that its ambiguous. I'm still using it in the proper context that I intended to. I personally feel based on all of the input and links that people have sent me to, that evolution is not based on anything factual. It's based on hypothetical postulated theory's, therefore its a belief.

reply to post by colin42

The most absolute perfect example of failure I have ever seen.

You cannot make a valid defence of anything in that post showing that either ants do not fit or humans do fit.

In colins world, probably not, but like I stated, ants engage in natural endeavors, where as we don't. That is the main difference, its real, its not made up, its understandable, and is how I see the main difference.

Your response is to say the least that of a spoilt petulent child in the middle of a hissy fit because it has been told it is wrong.

Well it doesn't matter, I don't take it to hard remembering that it's coming from the evolution point of view.

You are not man enough to admit when you are wrong but it is plain to see that even you know I have wrecked your little fantasy to everyone and you have neither the wit or knowledge to construct a counter to it.

Thats not true at all, I have been wrong several times on here, and have actually admitted to that. Even with the blue laminate which I lost records of, I sucked it up and just said ah oh well I must be wrong.

I think your confusing the frequency of times I'm wrong, with respect to your own.

I'll leave you with this. My favourite example is the anteater. It shows without a doubt that humans originate and evolved on this planet and it has done this by eating ants.

Well that doesn't make any sense, especially since we don't eat ants so I don't see the connection. Ants are here, and anteaters are here, and anteaters eat ants and are a main part of there diet.. You can't find a comparison for us.

reply to post by colin42

When correcting someone on their punctuation it actually helps to get your own correct.

I"m = wrong
I'm = correct

Now your trying to justify the absence of your question marks on your questions. For some reason this doesn't shock me. You refuse to admit anytime your wrong, then you can't understand why I would ask you if your high.

Seriously you need to pull your head out and start being fair to the thread, but also to yourself.

You have been so incredulous that you will dance around my questions, knowing the answer I'm looking for.

For example, your explanation above about my punctuation, if you know how to use it, why aren't you doing so?

reply to post by colin42

Ignoring that you have probably broken another T&C with your reference to me being high I suggest you read the information in your link again.

It's ok colin, its ambiguous.

No mention is made of humans being dependant on cows milk, none at all. You cannot even understand your error when someone points directly at it.

That link is discussing just how dependent we are, and how many different people that dependency spreads to. I know you might find this hard to believe, but people actually do drink cows milk and the percentages that do are rather high.

Still when you are red faced and ranting as you appear to be it is very hard to read anything with a clear head.

There is no ranting, milk is real, the people that drink it are real, and you can really go into a store and buy it right now. Notice the large volume of selection as well as the options it comes in.

I again suggest you take two anteaters disolved in water and get some rest. Give me a ring in the morning if you are no better and be assured. It is impossible for you to get any worse.

No I wont eat ants, not even chocolate covered.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I'm not sure you understand what dependent means. Milk is a luxury, not a necessity.

reply to post by Varemia

I'm not sure you understand what dependent means. Milk is a luxury, not a necessity.

That would require you to produce a main source of calcium, which I have already provided a table on, showing milk is the best choice. You can't ignore the chart, and we are at limits with meeting our needs to begin with

I'm able to see this based on the large population that uses milk, while you guys are scratching your heads wondering why we started drinking it to being with.

Please, tell me, If I'm wrong, and you all know that I am. Why did we start drinking milk to being with if we didn't need it?

reply to post by itsthetooth

That link is discussing just how dependent we are, and how many different people that dependency spreads to. I know you might find this hard to believe, but people actually do drink cows milk and the percentages that do are rather high.

No. It is clearly explaining where we source milk. You just do not have the knowledge to understand it but you are welcome to paste where it says we are dependant on milk.

There is no ranting, milk is real, the people that drink it are real, and you can really go into a store and buy it right now. Notice the large volume of selection as well as the options it comes in.

You can go into a store and buy roller skates that in no way means we are dependant on roller skates.

No I wont eat ants, not even chocolate covered.

Again showing a complete inability to read what is written.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

I'm not sure you understand what dependent means. Milk is a luxury, not a necessity.

That would require you to produce a main source of calcium, which I have already provided a table on, showing milk is the best choice. You can't ignore the chart, and we are at limits with meeting our needs to begin with.

You can reply to a point made by Varmemia who never used a question mark but are unable to reply to my points and comparisons regarding ants and humans claiming wrongly there are not the required question marks.

You have spammed your nonsense many times on every page in response to posts that do not contain question marks either. At every turn you show yourself to be ignorant and dishonest and lacking in basic knowledge.

Proof you are avoiding offering a counter argument because you know you cannot.

If you respond to this post where I have purposely avoided any phrase that contains a question mark you prove my point.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

BTW you did read the post, right? You are now aware of the difference between evolution and evolutionism?

If you havnt read the post, do not reply to this post, it would be a waste of yours and my time. If you have read it and intend to reply to this post with a quote, please quote this post in its entirety to remove accusations of quote mining.

The only thing you made me aware of is that its ambiguous. I'm still using it in the proper context that I intended to. I personally feel based on all of the input and links that people have sent me to, that evolution is not based on anything factual. It's based on hypothetical postulated theory's, therefore its a belief.

So you didnt read the post then!

And also split the post above after being specificaly asked not to...thanks for that.

If you read the post, you would find that we are in agreement that evolutionism is a belief system, and also that it has nothing to do with evolution.

For the las...god knows how many pages you've been spoutibg off about evolutionism this and evolutionism that and you couldnt, probably still canty explain what evolutionism is.

Your every argument comes from an extreme point of ignorance. You have no idea what you are saying most of the tim. You have been told by whichever cult you adhere to what to think for so long that you are unable to think outside of those cultish parameters.

BTW dont bother pointing out that I am profiling you, cos I am. And I bet most people would agree with me, which by your definition of "Numbers rule" (oh plese deny that, I have your quote all lined up) it must be right.

reply to post by colin42

No. It is clearly explaining where we source milk. You just do not have the knowledge to understand it but you are welcome to paste where it says we are dependant on milk.

Maybe you not quite understanding the concept here. If we never needed milk, why did we pick it up, process, homogenize, pasturize, fortify, package, ship , and refrigerate it? Your arguing against something that is a dead weight here. You can't argue that we chose to depend on milk.

We can banter all day about weather or not we need milk, but the fact is we go through a hell of a lot of trouble to get it into the stores. I'm sure you won't argue that it is a product that is available in your local stores. So understanding that, it's obvious we chose to depend on it for a source of calcium. You argue and say thats not true, but then your also not able to produce where it was exactly we got our calcium prior to cows milk. Either way, your coming up empty handed.

Quit beating around the bush and face the fact that milk is in stores, in plentiful form, and that most people choose to drink it. From a technical point of view, yes your right, its a choice, we don't have to drink milk. In other words we don't have to meet our daily needs of calcium. Milk was introduced to fit a need, not because its convenient. There is nothing convenient about all of the trouble we go through to get milk.

There are people that can't drink milk, and there are also people that choose to not drink milk. There are also suppliments for those people due to the problems they will encounter as a result. So you can continue to kid yourself not realizing what your saying will cause harm to those that aren't hitting there requirements.

Prepare to eat lots of sardines, gorge yourself on specific fruits and vegitables trying to hit your RDA.

reply to post by colin42

You can reply to a point made by Varmemia who never used a question mark but are unable to reply to my points and comparisons regarding ants and humans claiming wrongly there are not the required question marks.

Thats because I have also refrained from indicating that a lot of times you don't speak english. Some of the things you say are gibberish and don't make any sense. I'm sure some of which is due to you being in another country, and having different slang usage. This is why sometimes I tell you that you need to rephrase that questions. If it were worded right I might be able to catch it even without a question mark.

You have spammed your nonsense many times on every page in response to posts that do not contain question marks either. At every turn you show yourself to be ignorant and dishonest and lacking in basic knowledge.

Well I obviously am not up to speed as I'm still the one using question marks.

Proof you are avoiding offering a counter argument because you know you cannot.

There is no counter argument, you have proven beond a doubt to be inconsiderate, and dishonest, two qualities that will NOT help you win a debate. I have fronted every shred of information to prove my debate, and in most cases you are left cold unable to give me a solid reply, then you turn around and say that I'm wrong. I don't think so.

If you respond to this post where I have purposely avoided any phrase that contains a question mark you prove my point.

Just because I respond doesn't mean I'm answering any questions.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You answer a post where I tell you again that your link did not show humans depend on milk despite your adamant stance I was wrong.

I asked you to to paste where it supported you and you have not. Instead you write more unsupported clap trap and you tell me to quit beating around the bush.

I suggest you go away and have a good long look at yourself.

reply to post by idmonster

If you read the post, you would find that we are in agreement that evolutionism is a belief system, and also that it has nothing to do with evolution.

Thats not true, according to wiki, it does.

For the las...god knows how many pages you've been spoutibg off about evolutionism this and evolutionism that and you couldnt, probably still canty explain what evolutionism is.

I read the wiki, it is exaclty what I had assumed it to be.

Your every argument comes from an extreme point of ignorance. You have no idea what you are saying most of the tim. You have been told by whichever cult you adhere to what to think for so long that you are unable to think outside of those cultish parameters.

Intervention is not a cult, nor a religion, so your kinda stuck there. Intervention Can't even be classified as such even in an ambigious manner.

BTW dont bother pointing out that I am profiling you, cos I am. And I bet most people would agree with me, which by your definition of "Numbers rule" (oh plese deny that, I have your quote all lined up) it must be right.

Well your way that your profilling me and acting out means you must feel that I backed you into a corner. It's not to hard to do with evolutionism. Preach on brother.

reply to post by colin42

You answer a post where I tell you again that your link did not show humans depend on milk despite your adamant stance I was wrong.

I asked you to to paste where it supported you and you have not. Instead you write more unsupported clap trap and you tell me to quit beating around the bush.

I suggest you go away and have a good long look at yourself.

You do the exact same thing when I ask you to show me a link that proves evoltuion. Then when I read a link it tells me its postulated hypothetical theorys.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Just because I respond doesn't mean I'm answering any questions.

You really are a buffoon. Respond is what I asked you to do with the Ant v Human comparison so by responding here you have proved everything I have accussed you of to be correct.

So here you are. Responding to a post that contained no question marks. Something you claimed unable to do or understand when you could not answer the post relating to the similarities with human and Ants.

There is no counter argument, you have proven beond a doubt to be inconsiderate, and dishonest, two qualities that will NOT help you win a debate. I have fronted every shred of information to prove my debate, and in most cases you are left cold unable to give me a solid reply, then you turn around and say that I'm wrong. I don't think so.

Yes I know you had no counter response. Your pathetic posts above illustrate that quite clearly and the only reason you now claim I am inconsiderate, and dishonest is because you have nothing else to hide behind.

Your credability is zero. You had very little of value to offer originally and now you are bankrupt. This has brought my housekeeping to a close but every time you see or hear the word Anteater you will know what a fraud you are.

Think of it as my parting gift.

Why oh why, is anyone bothering to answer this complete fool?

I understand that at first it was amusing, but now it's a complete joke. You're all becoming just as guilty for the continuation of this nonsense......it's embarrassing.

Either ignore tooth, like one does to a child acting up, and get the thread back on track or just let it die.

reply to post by colin42


bankrupt hell, I was wondering where I cash in.

reply to post by Connector

Why oh why, is anyone bothering to answer this complete fool?

I understand that at first it was amusing, but now it's a complete joke. You're all becoming just as guilty for the continuation of this nonsense......it's embarrassing.

Either ignore tooth, like one does to a child acting up, and get the thread back on track or just let it die.

Well connector I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but it's probably due to you coming in late on this thread.You walked in on a thread that I entered after posting from another thread.

I do have to say that from my first question I posed at you, you too were unable to offer an acceptable explanation into why we drink cows milk. Amongst other questions as well. I have not had one single question answered to prove that we are in fact from this planet.