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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 350
31
<< 347  348  349    351  352  353 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Actually I was listed with a borderline genus IQ. But you on the other hand, is one that should worry. Not properly assembling questions and to top it all off not using correct punctuation, then turning around and trying to condition people to accept that as ok, tells me you seriously have something wrong with you
Are you sure this was form me LOL.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





LMAO Katie Perry

Stick that up there with the bible as "proof"

su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous
Wow, how emberassing for Katie Perry, Looks like you guys just want to prove everyone wrong. Like I said every one else is wrong and your right. Of course depending on the definition you find, you will also learn that a synonym for this is unearthy. Sorry but I don't know any other clearer definition for aliens.



Maybe you should stop using synonyms and start using the actual, correct word.

syn·o·nym (sn-nm)
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
3. Biology A scientific name of an organism or of a taxonomic group that has been superseded by another name at the same rank.
edit on 4-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If evolution has been seen in then it exists you steaming genius.
I'm assuming you meant Them, you guys really need to clean up your spelling. Anyhow, no your wrong, and I already cleared this up. According to wiki on speciation, they have only witnessed speciation in some aquatic life, viruses, and bacteria, and some insects. Now anything else is your imagination.




So you say. Shame the evidence says your wrong.
Where are you getting said evidence from?




Every link you have provided are you sure? The few links you have provided are all wrong and most you did not bother to read past the title and they showed you to be wrong as well.
I posted applicable links the first few times than after you refused to accept them I posted the main ones that require further work. It's not my fault you don't know how to research things.




Stop sitting on your genius and look back at the lies and drivel you have spewed. You seem to be the only one unaware of them. Which means your a deluded liar.
What are the details?




I am not surprised and they probably really said your beyond help
Dismissing me with nothing needed means the opposite genius.




You did not end your rubbish with a question mark?
That would be because I wasn't asking a question, DUH.




No really. One contradicts the other so if you maintain one is the truth then the other is a lie. In one you offer backup from your historical document, the bible. So again. Answer the question which one is the lie.
And like I said it all depends on weather or not you consider domesticated animals as part of the wild. So as soon as you answer, then I can answer as well.




You failed Pinocchio
Nope your wrong.




Because now you say it is incorrect. You did not look up what a definition was did you genius.
Now I don't know what your talking about because everything is a lie to you.




You have failed to explain it. Which is why you do not try. Provide the definiton of 'unnatural food'.
Oh that would be any food that doesn't naturally grow in the wild.




Who else would I be refering too? You have not got a clue about anything have you.
I understand evolution obviously a lot better than some of the other people on here, Geez some people actually think it involves humans, how messed up is that.




Your obsessed with this counselor thing and now let slip yours is a 'SHE'. You got a thing for yours? Does she visit your ward often?
Well I'm not on here to talk about my personal life, I think its embarrasing enough some of you have the gall to admitt you believe in evolution in humans. How sad.




Another lie. here it is
I do know what the difference is between drugs and meds, duh.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The huge excuse for not answering this question does not cover your lie.
This is where I'm convinced that you were abused as a child. So convinced that I'm lying about something when I'm not. To the best of my knowledge you had made a statement about ants using chemicals in there harvest of food. I don't recall the full details, but just that. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no lie, there is no conspiracy, there is no delusion on my part and there is cover up. It is what it is, and I have repeated to you several times now what has happened. Sorry if you having such a problem understanding this but its actually pretty simple.




You dismissed ants by saying that harvesting chemicals is natural to them when they dont harvest chemicals. I have asked you to explain how you managed to conclude this was natural behaviour when it is not. The fact you have done everything but answer it tells me you lie all the time.
Well then I will clear things up for you, IF ants harvested chemicals, which they apparently don't, but if they did, I'm not aware of any unnatural steps the use which would cause it to be unnatural, which is why I said they do it naturally. If you assuming I did a bunch of work and determined that the chemical ants work with is all natural, your false.

But thats what you get for assuming.




You being confused by something you thought I wrote does not answer how you came to the wrong answer about ants. Again genius, just in case you are confused. Explain how you came to that conclusion.
Geez you don't have to talk me up and call me genius, I'm borderline genius, there is a difference you know.

Anyhow I have explained this to you to many times now and its like kicking a dead horse, sorry if your having a problem getting it. Seek counseling.




Edit
Shall I answer for you? Because ants do not fit your fantasy and show it to be false you reject the evidence they offer out of hand as you do for anything that does not suit your argument.

You based your conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals is natural for them on an ignorant assumption with no thought or consideration for the evidence being offered. In anyones book that is being dishonest and incredulous and is how you have approached this thread in general. It is also why you refuse to answer this question
Well that depends on how you look at it. The way I see it is that if ants had unnatural abilitys, we would surly know about it, and it would be a hot topic for sure. I wasn't aware of anything out of the ordinary aside from them being super strong. So it was a good assumption on my part as I was right.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well since its a single word, thats going to be pretty hard to rearrange. But here it is...

www.talkorigins.org...

words 15 amd 17 if you need to know where they are exactly.


When you read...do you simply read the words, or do you read things in context? You missed the word "embraces". And of course it embraces various theories and hypothesis because they are still researching in that field. But just because there are a number of hypotheses related to the theory (!!) of evolution doesn't mean that theory somehow magically turns into a hypothesis.

To give you an example:

Imagine some scientist studying the historical migration of some salamander species. This squarely falls into the field of evolution. So he puts forward a hypothesis stating that the salamander travelled from NYC to Florida in a few thousand years. He hasn't proven it yet through objective evidence, it's not a theory until he brings forward evidence...so yeah, it's a hypothesis, one that is embraced by the theory of evolution. But no matter the outcome of this salamander hypothesis, it won't somehow turn the THEORY of evolution into a hypothesis.

Again, reading things in context is important





Well its not based on anything provalbe by our standards. Look at it just like how macroevolution is impossible to prove, its the same problem.


No it's not. One has been observed both in the lab and in nature...and is used to create modern meds. The other, aka your intervention theory, has ZERO objective evidence behind it. And that's why speciation is a scientific theory and intervention is at best a hypothesis.




I prefer the term understanding.


What's the difference in your mind? Are you saying this because you believe your "understanding" is factual or rational?




Well again I have never seen evolution addressed as a scientific theory, but I have found where it is addressed as a theory in addition to a hypothesis.


My post before this one gave you a specific link explaining in detail why it is a scientific theory. And no, it's not a hypothesis, you simply didn't read those words in context



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   


And compare that to the rest of the species here on earth and find any others that need oxygen aids.


A TON of animals would need aids at those heights...why do you think so few of them live up there???


We're just the only species intelligent enough to use science (real science, not pseudo-science like Pye) and technology to help us.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





When you read...do you simply read the words, or do you read things in context? You missed the word "embraces".
Thats right and the only reason that word is there is because the theory of evolution is the combination of a lot of different theorys. Thats the only reason embraces is there.




And of course it embraces various theories and hypothesis because they are still researching in that field. But just because there are a number of hypotheses related to the theory (!!) of evolution doesn't mean that theory somehow magically turns into a hypothesis.
Well when something is listed as a hypothesis, its doesn't have to magically turn into a hypothesis, it allready is one.




Imagine some scientist studying the historical migration of some salamander species. This squarely falls into the field of evolution. So he puts forward a hypothesis stating that the salamander travelled from NYC to Florida in a few thousand years. He hasn't proven it yet through objective evidence, it's not a theory until he brings forward evidence...so yeah, it's a hypothesis, one that is embraced by the theory of evolution. But no matter the outcome of this salamander hypothesis, it won't somehow turn the THEORY of evolution into a hypothesis.
I see so what your saying is if half of evolution is fake and the other half is proven, its ok, and its all real and proven. I'm sorry I don't see it like that in fact I see it the other way around which is if ANY of it is listed as a hypothesis, then the main theory can't stand as fact.




Again, reading things in context is important
I agree and when ANY part of it is a hypothesis, then the theory as a whole can't stand up to argument.




No it's not. One has been observed both in the lab and in nature...and is used to create modern meds.
Thats right speciation has been observed in some viruses and bacteria.




The other, aka your intervention theory, has ZERO objective evidence behind it. And that's why speciation is a scientific theory and intervention is at best a hypothesis.
With the one little pesky problem of there being a plethora of documentation about it.




What's the difference in your mind? Are you saying this because you believe your "understanding" is factual or rational?
Neither, its just not something I simply believe in, its something I have come to understand. Thats like asking a rapist if he believes in what he has done to others, while a third party can understand but not necesselary agree with the events that have taken place, or at least what they stand for.

This is why I argue that its not a belief.
I don't agree with what has happened to us or at least the motivation behind it all, which would be the opposite with religion.




My post before this one gave you a specific link explaining in detail why it is a scientific theory. And no, it's not a hypothesis, you simply didn't read those words in context

If your referring to the same link I re posted, then you are the only one taking it that way as I have had other people read it as well and they all agree that evolution is obviously not fact.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





But you can run an experiment that will take days that will change a single celled organism into a Multi-cellular ANIMAL. You can run the experiment or research WIKI....like you just did to prove this. Knowing this is a fact myself and knowing YOU can run the experiment...shows that given specific enviromental conditions, chemistry and exposure to other single celled organisms....again....EVOLUTION can be seen with your own eyes as a Single Celled animal will evolve into a Multicelled animal and continue to evolve to a larger and more complex Multicellular animal.

This is how all animal life...including Humans and Plant Life evolved. If you want me to describe the experiment I will or you can check WIKI....but it is EVOLUTION BABY! LOL! Split Infinity
But why is there no proof that single cells turn into multi cells.

What are you talking about!?

I just told you and I even offered to spend the time to document the Experimental Process of how to....within a certain amount of days would allow you to see for yourself how a Single Celled Organism can EVOLVE into a MULTICELLULAR ORGANISM....or as you refered to in a previous post...you said you didn't need to spend the money to run an experiment when you could look it up on WIKI.

It seems as if you have TOTALY ignored your own statements and either have no desire to either run the experiment or verify that there is various experiments that can be done to show this EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE.

WHY? Unless you just want to remain ignorant of the truth? Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I'm assuming you meant Them, you guys really need to clean up your spelling. Anyhow, no your wrong, and I already cleared this up. According to wiki on speciation, they have only witnessed speciation in some aquatic life, viruses, and bacteria, and some insects. Now anything else is your imagination.
I see your new and lowest tatic is to pick up on typo's. That is a very unwise move for you genius as you make many and many more from you just make no sense at all.

Listen maggot brain. I care little for what you have said. Start providing those definitions.


Where are you getting said evidence from?
Well beyond your capability to understand when you cannot even provide definitions for your made up terms


I posted applicable links the first few times than after you refused to accept them I posted the main ones that require further work. It's not my fault you don't know how to research things.
You must be a genius because for the life of me I cannot see what you get out of constant lying for no reason


I posted applicable links the first few times than after you refused to accept them I posted the main ones that require further work. It's not my fault you don't know how to research things.
As you are too bone idle to look back for your lies here is the one from the post you are replying too


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
or


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.
No confirmation on which is the lie as you are so dishonest you refuse too. Here is another from the same page


You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????
You refuse to explain how you reached your incorrect conclusion. This is just from one page but is enough to prove my point. Of course we wont even bother with how you can live in a whale by magic or how you are a science major or even a borderline genius


Dismissing me with nothing needed means the opposite genius.
Mindless drivel. Wipe the drool off your chin genius and try again


That would be because I wasn't asking a question, DUH.
And neither was I when you insisted on avoiding any issue you could not face. But talking of lies


I'm not sure if your just outright lying or hiding here, by not answering.
That looks to me as if you thought you were asking a question. See genius we can all play your game.


And like I said it all depends on weather or not you consider domesticated animals as part of the wild. So as soon as you answer, then I can answer as well.
While we are on typo's and gramma. What has the weather got to do with anything? Bringing domesticated animals in to back up your lie is just another lie but no matter.

Even including domestic animals which of these two statements is a lie


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
or


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.
You may as well answer because it costs me nothing to keep asking the question.


Now I don't know what your talking about because everything is a lie to you.
That very poor attempt at avoidance fails. Please supply your revised definiton version of target food.


Oh that would be any food that doesn't naturally grow in the wild.
First that is nothing to do with unnatural as ID supplied you the defintion of it and you cannot even understand that.

But that aside. WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF 'IN THE WILD'


I understand evolution obviously a lot better than some of the other people on here, Geez some people actually think it involves humans, how messed up is that.
Clearly demonstrating you dont have a clue genius.


Well I'm not on here to talk about my personal life, I think its embarrasing enough some of you have the gall to admitt you believe in evolution in humans. How sad.
So why keep telling people here that you are a 'science major', 'a borderline genius' that you are being or have been asessed by a councilor but they could do nothing for you. 'What your step father, the cop said' and who can forget 'what your imaginary friends think'


I do know what the difference is between drugs and meds, duh.
Nope. Give a definition



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



This is where I'm convinced that you were abused as a child. So convinced that I'm lying about something when I'm not. To the best of my knowledge you had made a statement about ants using chemicals in there harvest of food. I don't recall the full details, but just that. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no lie, there is no conspiracy, there is no delusion on my part and there is cover up. It is what it is, and I have repeated to you several times now what has happened. Sorry if you having such a problem understanding this but its actually pretty simple.
Your the one that is fixated about being abducted and anal probes by aliens. What damage in your past resulted in that? No dont answer.


Well then I will clear things up for you, IF ants harvested chemicals, which they apparently don't, but if they did, I'm not aware of any unnatural steps the use which would cause it to be unnatural, which is why I said they do it naturally. If you assuming I did a bunch of work and determined that the chemical ants work with is all natural, your false.
You have just lost your genius title. That has to be the most half witted reply that you could have come up with.

You claimed ants harvesting chemicals was natural. If you are entering into honest debate then you must have a reason with qualifying evidence to substantiate that claim. You believe that it would not be unnatural is not an answer.

You make this idiotic excuse for an explanation of how you reached your conclusion and end it with this


But thats what you get for assuming.
Very apt when applied to you and your apparent half wit views on what can be classed as natural.

Nothing the ant does in this reality is unnatural as per the definition suppled by ID and without a version for it from you that is the one I go by.


Well that depends on how you look at it. The way I see it is that if ants had unnatural abilitys, we would surly know about it, and it would be a hot topic for sure. I wasn't aware of anything out of the ordinary aside from them being super strong. So it was a good assumption on my part as I was right.


That is the whole point you complete fool. Ants farm, humans farm. Ants keep livestock, humans keep livestock. Ants use pesticides on their crops. Humans use pesticde on their crops. Ants build cities, Humans build cities.

If one is unnatural then both are unnatural. The fact is both are natural to be anything else involves magic.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well when something is listed as a hypothesis, its doesn't have to magically turn into a hypothesis, it allready is one.


Tooth, as has been stated dozens of times by now, the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY. However, the theory embraces a number of related hypothesis, aka stuff we're still researching. That DOESN'T turn the theory into a hypothesis.

You clearly didn't read the link I posted, because if you had, you'd realize how childish, uneducated, ignorant, and clueless your post is after being corrected soooooo many times. You're like the crazy person looking up during a nice day, replying "no it's red" to everyone telling him it's a nice blue sky outside today. The sad part is, I don't think you do it as a joke, it's a simple lack of education...and even worse, a healthy doze of ignorance that clearly prevents you from seeing reality. Really sad





If your referring to the same link I re posted, then you are the only one taking it that way as I have had other people read it as well and they all agree that evolution is obviously not fact.


As has been said a gazillion times already, it's a FACT and theory at the same time. And it's even stated in the very same link you keep on posting: LINK
edit on 5-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





What are you talking about!?

I just told you and I even offered to spend the time to document the Experimental Process of how to....within a certain amount of days would allow you to see for yourself how a Single Celled Organism can EVOLVE into a MULTICELLULAR ORGANISM....or as you refered to in a previous post...you said you didn't need to spend the money to run an experiment when you could look it up on WIKI.


And I also told you from our last reply about this, that I have already confirmed and agree with this part of speciation. Scientists know that viruses and bacteria can change, I have no problems with this. I'm trying to figure out who got the hair brained idea to assume that this also included humans and all other life.




It seems as if you have TOTALY ignored your own statements and either have no desire to either run the experiment or verify that there is various experiments that can be done to show this EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE.

WHY? Unless you just want to remain ignorant of the truth? Split Infinity
Nope I agree with it, but again within the constraints laid out in wiki under speciation.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





And I also told you from our last reply about this, that I have already confirmed and agree with this part of speciation. Scientists know that viruses and bacteria can change, I have no problems with this. I'm trying to figure out who got the hair brained idea to assume that this also included humans and all other life.


Because the fossil record, DNA analysis, and migratory trends fully confirm it


We don't have to see your mom give birth to you to figure out you're her son...just like we don't have to witness speciation from millions of years ago to confirm speciation, especially in light of actually witnessing it in everything that's alive, including humans.




Nope I agree with it, but again within the constraints laid out in wiki under speciation.


Wiki didn't lay out any "constraints". Again, you are simply not reading stuff in context. Of course they will only things we have witnessed with our eyes in an article about just that. Plenty of articles with other examples have been listed...articles you simply ignore like the one showing the FACT that the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY and not a hypothesis...another FACT you continue to ignore.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I see your new and lowest tatic is to pick up on typo's. That is a very unwise move for you genius as you make many and many more from you just make no sense at all.
Well I never claimed to be perfect with my spelling. Some of which is typos and others that are just wrong spelling. And I wasn't the one that thought it would interesting to entertain the idea of using it as a ploy in this thread. Once again its all the others that are so incredulous and not willing to accept the fact that they aren't necessarly winning in this debate, so they once again try something else to see if they can win that way.

It's just cheap.

Listen maggot brain. I care little for what you have said. Start providing those definitions.

Addressing me as maggot brain does not encourage me to continue listing definitions to you for one. Second, the asked terms are honestly common sense, so much so that it's seriously making me wonder about you. If you want to know what they mean, which I honestly think you do, I suggest you look them up yourself. I have done my homework and don't have to prove myself to you, that isn't why I'm here.




Well beyond your capability to understand when you cannot even provide definitions for your made up terms
I'm not the writer of the words, and I am using well no ones at that. So if you have a quest to know what they mean, and you honestly don't know, then you seriously shouldn't be on this thread. These are words that any high school kid would automatically know about. If your questioning my use of them then I also suggest you check out the synonyms, as some can be helpful.




You must be a genius because for the life of me I cannot see what you get out of constant lying for no reason
If you weren't able to correlate the definitions I posted with the usage and meaning, thats also not my fault. And why are you the ONLY one complaining? I know exactly what your doing, your simply questioning everything to the fullest extent to just refuse to accept it, which is what you have done umpteen times before.




As you are too bone idle to look back for your lies here is the one from the post you are replying too





Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
Well that was my own fault for not clarifying that I had not included domesticated animals and later did.




No confirmation on which is the lie as you are so dishonest you refuse too. Here is another from the same page
Now your lying because I already told you it depends on weather or not you included domestic animals into the equation. And I'm still waiting for an answer on that as well.




You refuse to explain how you reached your incorrect conclusion. This is just from one page but is enough to prove my point. Of course we wont even bother with how you can live in a whale by magic or how you are a science major or even a borderline genius
And your lying again, sad man, I already told you I thought I was quoting you.




Mindless drivel. Wipe the drool off your chin genius and try again
No it doesn't it means I didn't need any meds like you do genius.




And neither was I when you insisted on avoiding any issue you could not face. But talking of lies
Well at least at this point I know you have proven to understand the term redundant, as you have redundantly repeated yourself in the hopes of being more incredulous or possibly proven me wrong in some case. None of which has happened. Your not advancing and I have to caution you about something that is very serious. When you proceed to do the same things over and over, expecting to get different results, any counselor will tell you that is the definition of being crazy. So if I were you, I would get to a counselor quick.




That looks to me as if you thought you were asking a question. See genius we can all play your game.
Well it might appear that way with one exception, I usually use a question mark at the end of my questions.




While we are on typo's and gramma. What has the weather got to do with anything? Bringing domesticated animals in to back up your lie is just another lie but no matter.
Well since we are on typos, my gramma had nothing to do with this. And yes I spelled whether wrong, kudos for you colin as you are the last person I would have expected to catch that one. Could you be any better and learn how to use proper punctuation




Even including domestic animals which of these two statements is a lie
. Now see, thats a lie because we manufacture food for domesticated animals and they are not



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Even including domestic animals which of these two statements is a lie
... eating in the wild.




You may as well answer because it costs me nothing to keep asking the question.
You can ask till your blue in the face, but until you ask nicely, your not getting an answer from you incredulous old fart.




That very poor attempt at avoidance fails. Please supply your revised definiton version of target food
Can you restate the question, and I think I already answered this one.




First that is nothing to do with unnatural as ID supplied you the defintion of it and you cannot even understand that. Well no its more that you dont want to accept the truth. plus I don't recall getting colins definition of unnatural.




But that aside. WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF 'IN THE WILD'

I already gave you this from wiki, and you rejected it.




Clearly demonstrating you dont have a clue genius.
From all of the links I have been given I have yet to see humans included in any of the work of evolution.




So why keep telling people here that you are a 'science major', 'a borderline genius' that you are being or have been asessed by a councilor but they could do nothing for you. 'What your step father, the cop said' and who can forget 'what your imaginary friends think'
Well obviously because those are my credentials, and you have none as far as I have seen, aside from repeatedly asking the same questions over and over and rejecting all of my answers.




Nope. Give a definition
One is usually prescribed by a doctor, now I'll let your genius mind figure out which one.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your the one that is fixated about being abducted and anal probes by aliens. What damage in your past resulted in that? No dont answer.
None, you have also taken it upon yourself to make things up to try to add leverage to your side. Unfortunately it just makes you look more stupid. I never claimed any of these things genius.




You have just lost your genius title. That has to be the most half witted reply that you could have come up with.
It's called deductive reasoning, but I'm sure you know nothing about that detective repeat.




You claimed ants harvesting chemicals was natural. If you are entering into honest debate then you must have a reason with qualifying evidence to substantiate that claim.
Nope, I was being an idiot and just took your word for it.




You believe that it would not be unnatural is not an answer.

It is if you use deductive reasoning, but I honestly don't expect you to understand, and I do expect you to drill me on the term, title, and definition for the next 20 pages.




You make this idiotic excuse for an explanation of how you reached your conclusion and end it with this
Well at least we are now getting to the bottom of why you are so incredulous, you thought this was just an excuse. You must have been excused to death as a child.




Very apt when applied to you and your apparent half wit views on what can be classed as natural.
No what this teaches me colin is that you in fact have YOUR OWN definition of these words, and have taken a personal decision to not accept the mainstream versions. This is why your questioning me on them and trying to get them entered in a debate. You feel that by rejecting the authentic versions, and flogging people with your own versions, that you can change the truth. I'm sorry to say it doesn't work that way.




Nothing the ant does in this reality is unnatural as per the definition suppled by ID and without a version for it from you that is the one I go by.
This had already been established colin, which tells me that you obviously still don't understand my reply on it and probably still think I had just conjured up an excuse.




That is the whole point you complete fool. Ants farm, humans farm. Ants keep livestock, humans keep livestock. Ants use pesticides on their crops. Humans use pesticde on their crops. Ants build cities, Humans build cities.

If one is unnatural then both are unnatural. The fact is both are natural to be anything else involves magic.
I'm glad to see after 7 unneeded pages that you finally decided to get to the bottom of this. So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Your basically saying that because we have these common endeavors with ants, we both must be in the same boat. We are either both not from here, or are both from here. I think this leads us back to square one that we were at prior to all of this, which is that I obviously don't know enough about ants to make a comment about them.

I will say this however, if it is true that ants use pesticides on there food and we all know that both of us harvest food, does not prove they are an indigenous species nor does that alone prove we are both not. The bottom line is that there are a lot of species that harvest food. Probably not many that use pesticides, but then again, we probably learned the pesticide process from the ants to begin with. Now consider that a possibility and realize that based on that, it doesn't mean we are both in the same boat.

The complicated thing that is eluding you in this, as it does with most, is the human element. What I mean by that is that if your going to assume that humans are not from here, and you are going to produce things to prove it so, you need to also test the theory by removing us from the element, which you had failed to do. It's also not an easy thing to do which is why I'm always saying I don't expect you to understand. I'm not being mean, I'm being honest and not everyone can do so.

Again, its entirely possible that we learned how to harvest, and that we also learned from some other species to use pesticide's, it doesn't even have to be the ant we learned it from. It lacks instinctive values, which proves your assumption to be false.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, as has been stated dozens of times by now, the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY. However, the theory embraces a number of related hypothesis, aka stuff we're still researching. That DOESN'T turn the theory into a hypothesis.
Really ! Then what do you think it does, turn it into fact ?




You clearly didn't read the link I posted, because if you had, you'd realize how childish, uneducated, ignorant, and clueless your post is after being corrected soooooo many times. You're like the crazy person looking up during a nice day, replying "no it's red" to everyone telling him it's a nice blue sky outside today. The sad part is, I don't think you do it as a joke, it's a simple lack of education...and even worse, a healthy doze of ignorance that clearly prevents you from seeing reality. Really sad
The link you posted conflicts date with the wiki link on speciation. So there is a question as to which is correct. Your link includes humans in evolution, but I didn't see any references. The wiki link I'm referring to does.

So I guess it comes down to needing proof when your talking about references. Of course I lean on the side of the wiki link as not only does it include references but it also included the specific species that were witnessed in speciation.




As has been said a gazillion times already, it's a FACT and theory at the same time. And it's even stated in the very same link you keep on posting: LINK
This was a much better link but the problem here is when they say biological evolution is a fact, they aren't saying that each and every step has been proven, they also aren't admitting to which parts that includes. Again, and I stand my ground on this, if they are referring to speciation, no progress has been made. And from the lack of information, they could be talking about anything.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well I never claimed to be perfect with my spelling. Some of which is typos and others that are just wrong spelling. And I wasn't the one that thought it would interesting to entertain the idea of using it as a ploy in this thread. Once again its all the others that are so incredulous and not willing to accept the fact that they aren't necessarly winning in this debate, so they once again try something else to see if they can win that way.
Strange but it is you that is using this cheap tactic so why are you accusing others? You are very childish.


Addressing me as maggot brain does not encourage me to continue listing definitions to you for one.
Is that so? You calling me moron, ingit, in need of counseling is ok then? Another poor excuse to try to avoid the fact you cannot supply any definitions of the terms you use because they are meaningless.


Second, the asked terms are honestly common sense, so much so that it's seriously making me wonder about you.
No they are not common sense. They are nonsense. Worse still you change them to suit your current idiotic stance, whatever that may be. So I want them defined before we try to move on.


If you want to know what they mean, which I honestly think you do, I suggest you look them up yourself. I have done my homework and don't have to prove myself to you, that isn't why I'm here.
Unlike you I look up anything I am not sure of. These made up terms do not exist on any search function. The only place they exist is in your head. So define them


I'm not the writer of the words, and I am using well no ones at that.
What the hell are you on about?


So if you have a quest to know what they mean, and you honestly don't know, then you seriously shouldn't be on this thread. These are words that any high school kid would automatically know about. If your questioning my use of them then I also suggest you check out the synonyms, as some can be helpful.
If any high school kid would know then define them. Stop wasting all this time you are spending avoiding doing so.


If you weren't able to correlate the definitions I posted with the usage and meaning, thats also not my fault.
You dammed idiot. You cannot give me the definition of two seperate words when you use them together. This is why I asked for a definition of the TERMS you are using. Define them


And why are you the ONLY one complaining? I know exactly what your doing, your simply questioning everything to the fullest extent to just refuse to accept it, which is what you have done umpteen times before
Your poor reading skills again. Everyone is telling you your terms are meaningles from unnatural food to postulated hyperphetical theory.


Well that was my own fault for not clarifying that I had not included domesticated animals and later did.
It does not matter. One is a lie and the other is not. Which one do you believe to be true?


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
or


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.
Are you going to answer?


Now your lying because I already told you it depends on weather or not you included domestic animals into the equation. And I'm still waiting for an answer on that as well.
Again what has the weather got to go with it? I have already said even so it has no bearing on one being a lie.


And your lying again, sad man, I already told you I thought I was quoting you.
And you are not answering the question AGAIN.


You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????
Avoidance of supplying the answer is the same as a lie. You know full well what I expect but you also know it shows you never gave your verdict based on anything but your own ignorance. Answer the question.


No it doesn't it means I didn't need any meds like you do genius.
I have never claimed to be a borderline genius, that was your lie. At title you lost because of your continued stupidity.


Well at least at this point I know you have proven to understand the term redundant, as you have redundantly repeated yourself in the hopes of being more incredulous or possibly proven me wrong in some case.
It shows you do not understand the word redundant because there is a reason for me repeating the questions. You are not giving the answers.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 



Your not advancing and I have to caution you about something that is very serious. When you proceed to do the same things over and over, expecting to get different results, any counselor will tell you that is the definition of being crazy. So if I were you, I would get to a counselor quick.
Your the expert on those that look at your mental health. I would guess you spend a lot of time with them. The only result I expect is an honest answer from you. So yeah I must be mad. You and honesty are exact opposites.


Well it might appear that way with one exception, I usually use a question mark at the end of my questions.
But you didnt. You didnt need too but you use it as a ploy but seem to get upset when it is used against you.


Well since we are on typos, my gramma had nothing to do with this. And yes I spelled whether wrong, kudos for you colin as you are the last person I would have expected to catch that one. Could you be any better and learn how to use proper punctuation
Again a ploy you started but dislike when you are the victim of it.

Now see, thats a lie because we manufacture food for domesticated animals and they are not
Answer the question fool.


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
or


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Strange but it is you that is using this cheap tactic so why are you accusing others? You are very childish.
If you go back and read you will see that in fact someone else had brought it up and I had commented how you need help in the punctuation department.




Is that so? You calling me moron, ingit, in need of counseling is ok then? Another poor excuse to try to avoid the fact you cannot supply any definitions of the terms you use because they are meaningless.
Aside from target food, which has been explained with a series of other definitions, they are all available through wiki and google. I see no point in opening up a can of worms for you so that you can debate the original meanings. I'm not using any odd versions or my own versions of the definitions, I'm using the english language.




No they are not common sense. They are nonsense. Worse still you change them to suit your current idiotic stance, whatever that may be. So I want them defined before we try to move on.
Well if I was fabricating my own definitions of those words, I sure in the hell wouldn't be sending you to wiki as those are the known definitions.




Unlike you I look up anything I am not sure of. These made up terms do not exist on any search function. The only place they exist is in your head. So define them
The only one that doesn't exist is Target food, and I have explained its comprised of these other definitions.




What the hell are you on about?
Meant to say well known ones.




If any high school kid would know then define them. Stop wasting all this time you are spending avoiding doing so.
I have already provided you with links to wiki going directly to them. If your computer doesn't display links thats not my fault.




You dammed idiot. You cannot give me the definition of two seperate words when you use them together. This is why I asked for a definition of the TERMS you are using. Define them
The only one you wont find is Target food. I don't make up my own language sorry.




Your poor reading skills again. Everyone is telling you your terms are meaningles from unnatural food to postulated hyperphetical theory.
Correct, it was suppose to be Postulate, hypothesis.




It does not matter. One is a lie and the other is not. Which one do you believe to be true?
I believe that Domesticated animals will NOT have target food.




Are you going to answer?
And this is where you have made a mistake as you have taken the word most to mean all. Sorry it doesn't.




Again what has the weather got to go with it? I have already said even so it has no bearing on one being a lie.
Nothing, I thought you were smart enough to figure out it was a typo.




And you are not answering the question AGAIN.
Yes I already did.




Avoidance of supplying the answer is the same as a lie. You know full well what I expect but you also know it shows you never gave your verdict based on anything but your own ignorance. Answer the question.
Thinking I was quoting you is not a lie.




I have never claimed to be a borderline genius, that was your lie. At title you lost because of your continued stupidity.
Sorry I didn't not check the test myself, it was checked by a doctor.




It shows you do not understand the word redundant because there is a reason for me repeating the questions. You are not giving the answers.
I gave you a link, you need to learn how to use it.



new topics




 
31
<< 347  348  349    351  352  353 >>

log in

join