What on earth does the drivel above even mean? 'If I can see it, touch it world then it must not be real'

The rest creeps me out as you paint the picture of you as Freddy Cruger type. Touchin everything. OOooh (shudders)

Which is the very definition of religion. You have succeeded in creating a religion for yourself, and that is all you have accomplished.

Then, yet again, you've heard incorrectly or only heard what you wanted to hear. It's part of the science education standards for every state in the US.

You heard wrong!

And for anybody else who cares, you just stated "in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter"

In this statement, tooth has admitted that statistics, and evidence will be ignored because of the subject matter. I dont even know where to begin....L.M.A.O

I think we just won the lottery, but now we're arguing that theres no way, because the chances are just too small, so now we're trying to figure out, how it got cheated, when in fact, we just won fair and square.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

---

You heard wrong!

Ok so now you will educate me on the supernatural ??

And for anybody else who cares, you just stated "in the realm of intervention is you can't hold it to ideas and statistics and evidence like everything else because of the subject matter"

In this statement, tooth has admitted that statistics, and evidence will be ignored because of the subject matter. I dont even know where to begin....L.M.A.O

Well if I'm wrong, then there isn't a single thing in the bible that you find to be fantasy, or made up ??

A religion that is not sure about if there is a creator? A religion where the people are victims of genocide? A religion with no happy events or possible ending? A religion where people are tortured?

What the hell kind of religion is that ????????????????

I don't know what US your talking about, but in the one I'm in, its taught but the individual still has a choice in what they want to believe in, er, religion or anything else.

And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm

---

I think we just won the lottery, but now we're arguing that theres no way, because the chances are just too small, so now we're trying to figure out, how it got cheated, when in fact, we just won fair and square.

You are unable to provide any proof that shows how humans came to be on earth, yet you won the lottery. Epic fail.

I'd say it speaks volumes about the mind of the person that invented it.

But that has nothing to do with what you claimed. You said, in this post, that:

Which is wrong.

Well you think that evolution's chances of leading to us was too small. I was just trying to show you that just because they are small, doesn't it mean it didn't happen, it also doesn't mean you just ignore it completely. I have provided evidence that we are from earth, because we have been here for awhile, just look at human history. What you haven't been able to prove, is how the universe is older than 15 billion years, how humans aren't from earth??

How about the species that have "leftovers", like Ostriches who no longer use their wings. They evolved from a species that used wings, into one that had no need for them.

Why does it have wings? It just grew wings for no reason? Or is it possibly because it once used those wings, and then came upon a new environment somehow and adapted. Same thing happened with Iguanas on the galopagos islands. You don't really think everything just started out like it did? The universe just popped into existence with humans, birds, dinosaurs and monkeys just walking around????? Where the hell is your proof for that???

ETA:
Or is it that you want to play a game of semantics, and say "oh well the bird that flew that turned into an ostrich was really an ostrich the whole time". We can play that game, its all about what we want to call things so we can have shared meaning. If you say species means one thing, and somebody else says it means another we'll never understand each other. You recognize that the ostrich may have had use for its wings, for flying, and then changed it's environment, and adapted to life without the use of flight. You just want to call both animals the same name and say we're wrong, it never changed. But you see this is just a mind game, we're both MEANING the same thing, but saying it differently, but to complicate it worse, you've changed the meaning of words that already have a general shared meaning that everyone understands. This is why anyone, and everyone you talk to won't agree, because your not using the same meaning we are. Lets just for now call the ostrich that used its wings, x, and we'll call the ostrich that doesn't use its wings, y. Now is x the same as y? No, otherwise they would both be x, or y, we wouldn't have to differentiate between them. But obviously we have to because one flies, and the other doesn't, so surely we should clearly identify each one, as opposed to calling them the same thing.

I believe a religion would have benefits, so tell me, what do I get out of this?

I'm saying its a choice, a poor one, but still a choice.

And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Do you mean wrong because they really are teaching it or wrong because its evolution.

And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Which is wrong.

I have never seen any definition of religion that states that it's necessarily beneficial. What do you get out of it? Not a clue. Some people practice self-flagellation as part of their religion, maybe this is your psychological version of it. I could speculate about it all day long but that's not really the point, is it? You yourself stated that interventionism is outside of the realm of "statistics and evidence", so it's just another religion

I'm saying its a choice, a poor one, but still a choice.

No, that's not what you said. You said, referring to evolution:


And last I heard we aren't teaching it in our schools.

Which is factually incorrect.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. It was clear from the statement of yours that I quoted immediately prior to my reply that I was saying your claim that "we aren't teaching [evolution] in our schools" is factually incorrect. Here's the relevant part of the post again, in case your memory doesn't reach back quite that far:

How is it that you can believe your beliefs without any evidence, and then turn around and say that evolution, which is provable by hard scientific data cannot be proven?

It's like you are willfully ignorant, and you're trying to spread it to your child, no doubt. Just wait till he takes a biological studies course.

You might see him become an "evolutionist." Course, you could always brainwash him more by saying over and over that evolution has no evidence, even though it has tons of evidence, and then tell him to believe some books written by people a long time ago with no evidence, saying that if something doesn't need evidence, then it must be true!

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

---

Of course not, wouldn't that be like you asking me to take your word for it? Are you noted for being the Osami of worldly information?

It's not my information. It is the information derived from scientific study and observation over the past 150 years. You act like I'm just guessing on this stuff, but your opinion is nothing more than a guess.

Well we all pretty much live in a "if I can see it or touch it world, then it must not be real." I step out of the box a tad and give a little thought to the possibility that I MIGHT not know everything, and that I MAY not have seen and touched everything.

You certainly don't know everything. I'd even say you barely know anything at all. No offense, just basing it on your inability to defend your points or even have a conversation on the topic without making up assumptions and changing the subject whenever you are proven wrong.

If so, we'd be in big trouble and would probably still be in the dark ages.

Well then I must be ahead of you in leaps and bounds.

This proves what I said above. You either intentionally ignored what I said or can't comprehend it.

YOU, haven't proven anything Dr, Barcs. You have presented some links which I'm sorry to say all are introduced in plain english as hypotheticle and postulated theorys. I don't know why everyone keeps missing this important fact. Is it that you guys don't read the links you send me to, or do you conveniently skip over this introductory sentance?

It's not my fault you instantly dismiss scientific studies and experiments, written by people that have dedicated their lives to learning as much as they can about evolution. You don't read, you just find a buzz word like "hypotheses" and instantly think it means the entire thing is a guess. Sorry bud, experiments are repeatable and testable. Your guess is nothing more than a guess. Evolution has been observed in a lab, including speciation. Races of homo sapien prove that evolution happens in humans. Homo sapiens changing from just 30,000 years ago to the present proves evolution in humans. You cannot provide a better scientific explanation, and your hypothesis has zero evidence behind it. Sorry, you can't provide ANYTHING that suggests otherwise, and its been that way the entire thread. I just don't understand that blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Don't tell people their views are wrong when they back it up with evidence, and you fail to provide evidence of your theory. You've also completely ignored the topic of the thread and won't stop repeating the same nonsense over and over again. There's another ancient aliens thread with your name on. Why not post in a thread where its actually relevant instead of trolling this one?

Ok, so your claiming that humans have now been observed changing into another species. I want to know, who observed this, when, and what they were observed changing into. As well as what the name of the new species is.

I've explained this dozens of times but you ignore it. Changes happen slowly, nothing suddenly changes into another species. Why do you constantly ignore this? I know you'll ignore any link I post and everything I say even though it's accurate, so I guess that's pretty much it. You failed to explain race and changes observed in humans in the past 30,000 years. Again, if you can't do this, you have nothing at all to prove your ridiculous statement that evolution has never been seen in humans. It has.

I don't know what your talking about in this section, but can disagree with you based on the fact that every example I have been able to produce that squashes the possibility of evolution has NEVER been met with an acceptable answer. It just proves that I'm correct, and your being incredulous.

Evolution has hundreds of pieces of evidence to back it up. You are the one making assumptions and ignoring anything that contradicts your world view. Why are you afraid to admit that its faith and has no evidence behind it? Evolution happened, has been observed, repeated, tested, etc etc. It's not even disputed anymore in the scientific community. It's peer reviewed by scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding how things work. You can keep lying and ignoring evidence, but all it does is hurt your credibility, hence why even Quad, someone who is also a creationist, even disagrees with you. You make him seem like a logical evolution expert in comparison. I probably shouldn't have even responded again, but I have to keep you honest. If you keep lying and ignoring evidence, then I will keep calling you out on it.