Can you prove evolution wrong

"Postulated hypothetical theory"

aka "f%$£ it, I'll just mix random words"

the evidence is all around that evolution is not the answer to why we're here on this planet. for some reason people have this strange aversion acknowledging that we have been created. for one thing, one cannot build any semblance of rational reality on top of an unknown foundation. science merely observes, but cannot even fathom how everything is currently being held together in the space time continuum. until they figure out the base unit of matter everything is a theorem or hypothesis. there is only one rational explanation given to us by our Creator. we either accept it or we don't. and as the autopsy will show, evolution didn't make it.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
"Postulated hypothetical theory"

aka "f%$£ it, I'll just mix random words"

Oh man, I can't keep up! another good one!

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by flyingfish

 

WHERE ARE ALL THE BONES?!?!?!

reply to post by hocuspocus


so when you accept that there already is an answer you stop looking for truth, when you stop looking you stop caring, i dont think you could care about truth if you stop looking for the right answers.

we have quantum theory, its not perfect but we do have some understanding about our universe. science moves forward you seem to just stay put in time.

reply to post by MrXYZ

"Postulated hypothetical theory"

aka "f%$£ it, I'll just mix random words

Well postulated should have had a comma after it but the rest is in adjetive.

The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".

en.wikipedia.org...

You seriously should learn more before you make fun of people.

reply to post by colin42

Was you right or was you wrong. What are you saying now?

Who taught you how to talk, is this some new type of slang?

reply to post by Confusion42

Maybe you just have an agenda.

Or your crazy.

This whole thread, is basically you arguing against various people and it's all the same thing.
Every person here thinks your crazy!


But hey, the show must go on, right?

The only problem is that I'm the only one that is producing any credible information that actually proves how we got here and why. Everyone else is claiming that we were either birthed from an ancestor of apes or evolved from some evil slime.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

"Postulated hypothetical theory"

aka "f%$£ it, I'll just mix random words

Well postulated should have had a comma after it but the rest is in adjetive.

The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".

en.wikipedia.org...

You seriously should learn more before you make fun of people.

More embarrassing moments from the genus

reply to post by itsthetooth


do you know what evolution is?

id appreciate it if you'd explain what you think it is, but you don't have to.

reply to post by colin42

Really, I mean what is the use of quoting anymore of this rubbish. You do not show much genius or any knowledge as a science major.

You gave me definitions for SINGLE WORDS. I asked for the definitions of the TERMS you made up. I explained how words take on new meaning when you combine them with others. Here it is again

Here is an example of how words change when combined

Oh thats why you kept asking for definitions. No wonder, well I wasn't giving any terms just words in there original meaning. Except for target food which I have already agreed to have produced.

Ya understanding things does require a little common sense from the english language. As you exampled. I totally agree with you but the meanings were not taken out of ordinary context so they do work. You may never find floating car in a dictionary but if your seriously not smart enough to figure out what the two words working together means, you have some issues.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition.

Well you could be right again as the words could change meaning, mine dont, unless you have a runaway imagination, which it sounds like you do.

reply to post by colin42

You supplied the definitons to words not the terms you use. Redundant adaption, redundant processs, unnatural food, target food, in the wild. Try again

Oh I see where your getting lost here. I can totally understand as I also see you struggling with replys and often times it looks like your speaking some kind of slang and not making sense. The words arne't to hard to figure out.

In the wild is a good one. Lets pull our head out for a moment and break down what it means. "In the" section specifically directs the word wild, to be a noun. Now I could have just used the word wild, then you would have bitched that it could have been any of the meanings and we have no clue. The fact that I included "IN THE" with it, tells you it has to be the noun.

If you seriously need any further help beyond this, I'm not here to instruct people on the english language. I assume most have this already.

They do have to be outside nature though and nothing in making bread is outside of nature and no steps in making bread are redundant.

As per the definition of wild, you will see that it specifically states things that are not part of human civilization. This means that ovens, that are used to cook the bread are not considered natural.

un·nat·u·ral/ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: 1.Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial.
Synonyms: abnormal - artificial - factitious - affected

Now if I'm wrong, then please give the colin version of what you do consider to be unnatural and also what wild is.

Can anyone actually be this thick Wild and 'In the wild' are NOT the same. One defines a condition while the other describes a place. Define in the wild.

Your obviously just being incredulous and wanting to open up a discussion to try to enter your own perspecitve of the words and there meanings. It's one thing if you just don't understand, its something completly different if you just don't want to.

I'm not here to hash over peoples own versions of words, thats what dictionarys and wiki are for.

There's a bit of logic for you do you think that is proof your fantasy is reality?

Well it sure does raise the question, honestly, why do we have this word if everything is natural?

I will resist asking for a definition for excessive adaption until you start altering it to suit yourself.

There is no altering, that is the synonym.

So any fish, flower, fowl that has excessive seeds, eggs when breeding are not from here? Pretty much no insects either. You never have to do more than scratch the surface of your silly fantasy for it to fall apart.

Why would you assume that?

So this is why you need to define IN THE WILD.

In the wild is a noun, think of where the bushmen are, they are in the wild.

Why the link to domesticated? I know what that is but have no idea what domesticated grass is. Sorry just tickled me again. Your defending it your serious

No I'm not defending it, it was meant as a laugh. If cattle are eating wild food, then they are not domesticated.

And I told you that was not a typo. You meant what you wrote and it fits what you was trying to link to in the bible. Dont try that lie with me because I will not accept it

Now I understand whey you think its a lie, because of god bringing animals here. Well what it comes down to is if you believe he brought, some, most, or all animals here. It's confusing , seriously especially if you believe that all life from mars was pushed over to earth. It does appear however that at least with the aquatic life, there still seems to be a pretty good balance going on in that neck of the woods. Its the life out on land thats in question. Not that aquatic life is perfectly balanced, but I don't think its as bad as it is out here. Still the issue comes down to how much in overall and I think there is more in balance then not. The animals that were moved here aside from aquatic life, are mostly not in balance, then we have other life falling with the domino effect both from that and the new life that isn't suppose to be here.

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.

Now I see why you keep questioning me on this. It comes down to how much was here, how much was replaced. It's a tuff call but I feel there is less that was brought here, compared to what remained. So my sentance would have been correct had I of said Well I never said that all or even most others don't have target food. Even though it tells us in the bible that ...

reply to post by colin42

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

Which one is correct


Why would you say that?

see above.

It is correct, more so with humans but most have target food. Keep in mind I'm including aquatic life in the part.

reply to post by colin42

You matey can no longer claim to only accept facts or hard evidence as in seeing a human evolve. Common sense of others says evolution is true, So it must be. Who needs all that hard work gathering evidence.

Well a lot of people on here have made those claims that evolution has been proven. And to a degree, I can agree. I know by reading wiki for example about speciation, that its been observed in some aquatic life, and bacteria and viruses and some insects. There seems to however be this inviisible leap over to humans that cant be confirmed by anything I read.

I'm sticking by the wiki page on speciation and also the fact that a lot of the sections about evolution in general are strongly under debate. Now in my opinion if it were an easy obvious fact, nothing would be under debate.

Never expected you to admit you was wrong

What you mean to say was... "never expected you to admit you were wrong."

Only in your fantasy world Pinnochio

It's true, you never came up with a target food for humans, but your able to do so with other life, which tells me you understand the question. Not a single person has been able to disprove Pye's video about human genetics even though the information is public knowledge. No one has been able to disprove the bible even though they have sent me to links claiming to have done so, no one can honestly do so without recreating the supernatual powers that were used.

No one is able to prove that evolution is an actual working theory, at least in part. There have never been any bones identified and connecting us to common ancestors. Natual selection is strongly under debate, and they aren't even sure if its the vehicle used for evolution. Macroevolution cant be witnessed, so it can't be confirmed.

There is about as much hard evidence as there is in intervention aside from that fact that at least I have documentation on my side.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I am Swiss, and back home we have DOMESTICATED cows eat IN THE WILD every single summer, and only stored food in winter...

So according to your "logic" (overstatement of the year), those cows are domesticated 6 months of the year, and "wild" the other 6 months

THINK before you type!!

I didn't have to think, the definition I posted proved it to be correct. So you had partially domesticated cattle. The definition clearly states that if humans feed them, they are domesticated.

reply to post by vjr1113

do you know what evolution is?

id appreciate it if you'd explain what you think it is, but you don't have to.

IMO I think evolution is a lot like a rube goldburg machine that actually doesn't work.

i dont know why you say evolution is in debate, thats just not true.

macro evolution is change within species like dogs and foxes, they both have common ancestors but they cannot interbreed.

working model?

darwin's theory of evolution

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Was you right or was you wrong. What are you saying now?

Who taught you how to talk, is this some new type of slang?

Weirdly it was in answer yo you garbled nonsense. I feel you have nothing to say on this subject that holds weight either

And was I wrong, NO, I was right, Ants aren't guilty of any unnatural activity.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Oh thats why you kept asking for definitions. No wonder, well I wasn't giving any terms just words in there original meaning. Except for target food which I have already agreed to have produced.

I ask myself, can you really be this stupid?

You use the term unnatural food. I ask for the definition and you give me the definition for unnatural NOT unantatural food. I will supply you with an expalnation given to you twice now.

Here is an example of how words change when combined.

1. Swimming: The action of moving through water.
2. Costumes: A set of clothing or single garment that makes up an outfit.
3. Swimming costume. Clothes that you swim in so you dont get arrested for skinny dipping.
4. Costume Swimming. Means nothing at all. I would have to define meaning If I wished to use it.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition as in #4

Well you could be right again as the words could change meaning, mine dont, unless you have a runaway imagination, which it sounds like you do.

Have you had a Lobotomy? Are you trying to say IN THE WILD is the same as WILDLIFE and WILD?

Are you trying to say unnayural food has the same meaning as unnatural or food? Or that redundant adaption has any meaning that comes anywhere close to the definitions for redundant or adaption? If you do then you are not just an ignorant moron, you are a very commited ignorant moron.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Oh I see where your getting lost here. I can totally understand as I also see you struggling with replys and often times it looks like your speaking some kind of slang and not making sense. The words arne't to hard to figure out.

What a pathetic attempt to avoid providing the definitions for the terms you made up and use. Supply the definitions for your made up terms.

In the wild is a good one. Lets pull our head out for a moment and break down what it means. "In the" section specifically directs the word wild, to be a noun. Now I could have just used the word wild, then you would have bitched that it could have been any of the meanings and we have no clue. The fact that I included "IN THE" with it, tells you it has to be the noun.

It has taken you at least seven pages to work that out. Trouble is it does not define what you mean by IN THE WILD. Your one attempt. 'animals of the outdoors' did not even come close. Is a cow on a ranch in the wild? Is a fish in a lake in a garden in the wild? Is a deer on a moore in the wild?

As per the definition of wild, you will see that it specifically states things that are not part of human civilization. This means that ovens, that are used to cook the bread are not considered natural.

Show the evidence that proves human civilisation is unnatural. Show ovens are unnatural, are earth ovens or even open fires unnatural?

un·nat·u·ral/ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: 1.Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial.
Synonyms: abnormal - artificial - factitious - affected

Show me the adverts for Unnatural or abnormal ovens. Show me where ovens are classified as artificial ovens.

Now if I'm wrong, then please give the colin version of what you do consider to be unnatural and also what wild is.

I dont need too as YOU were asked to supply the definition for the term unnatural food.

Your obviously just being incredulous and wanting to open up a discussion to try to enter your own perspecitve of the words and there meanings. It's one thing if you just don't understand, its something completly different if you just don't want to.

Your statement applies solely to you. Its called transfered guilt.

I'm not here to hash over peoples own versions of words, thats what dictionarys and wiki are for.

I'm not here to see you use made up terms that change to suit your current argument. Supply the definitions for the terms you use and then we can move on.

Well it sure does raise the question, honestly, why do we have this word if everything is natural?

We need to have the word unnatural to explain your unnatural fascination for believing things which have no proof whilst rejecting those that do. Very unnatural.

There is no altering, that is the synonym.

Another word you misuse.

Why would you assume that?

Idiot

In the wild is a noun, think of where the bushmen are, they are in the wild.

So they are completely natural then?

No I'm not defending it, it was meant as a laugh. If cattle are eating wild food, then they are not domesticated.

Dont believe you.