Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by MrXYZ

Sorry, but the pat on the back goes to someone else...

I agree that your being a hypocrite. You try to claim that scientists did all this, which I agree with but fail to understand why it is when I bring up Michael Persinger claiming telepathy to be real you fill it in with your own understanding that it's not a for sure thing.

The title speaks for itself and doesn't say that he thinks he found telepathy, it says telepathy is a fact.

In addition to this you also tried to water down your acceptance of the title claiming that someone on ATS named it, therefore the title could be missleading. Yet when I researched it I found that it was actually the DR himself that titled it as such, and when I brought this to your attention, you remained silent about it.

Again, you only want to believe in what you want to, and even if it means ignoring the facts.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Sorry, but the pat on the back goes to someone else...

I agree that your being a hypocrite. You try to claim that scientists did all this, which I agree with but fail to understand why it is when I bring up Michael Persinger claiming telepathy to be real you fill it in with your own understanding that it's not a for sure thing.

The title speaks for itself and doesn't say that he thinks he found telepathy, it says telepathy is a fact.

In addition to this you also tried to water down your acceptance of the title claiming that someone on ATS named it, therefore the title could be missleading. Yet when I researched it I found that it was actually the DR himself that titled it as such, and when I brought this to your attention, you remained silent about it.

Again, you only want to believe in what you want to, and even if it means ignoring the facts.

As we told you the last time you brought up Persinger, his results were never replicated...although numerous research institutes tried so.

An experiment that doesn't hold up to peer reviews isn't successful...and it doesn't matter who comes up with the experiment.

You on the other hand haven't posted a single shred of objective evidence supporting your claims in this thread...after all those pages....that's pretty stunning

reply to post by MrXYZ

As we told you the last time you brought up Persinger, his results were never replicated...although numerous research institutes tried so.

An experiment that doesn't hold up to peer reviews isn't successful...and it doesn't matter who comes up with the experiment.

You on the other hand haven't posted a single shred of objective evidence supporting your claims in this thread...after all those pages....that's pretty stunning

Your making that up. I don't remember ever reading anything about it not holding up to peer reviews, what did they do, borrow his proprietary helmet .

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

As we told you the last time you brought up Persinger, his results were never replicated...although numerous research institutes tried so.

An experiment that doesn't hold up to peer reviews isn't successful...and it doesn't matter who comes up with the experiment.

You on the other hand haven't posted a single shred of objective evidence supporting your claims in this thread...after all those pages....that's pretty stunning

Your making that up. I don't remember ever reading anything about it not holding up to peer reviews, what did they do, borrow his proprietary helmet

.

Clearly you never bothered looking it up...it's even on the main Wiki page about Persinger

But as always, you simply ignore all evidence that goes against your fantasy belief, so I'm not surprised anymore

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well here is the section in wiki and it makes no point of there being any uncertanty.

Research in parapsychologyIn 1974 Persinger proposed that extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves may be able to carry telepathic and clairvoyant information.[3] Persinger has published reports of rudimentary 'telepathic' communication between pairs of subjects in the laboratory.[4][5] He has also published increases in remote viewing accuracy of remote viewer Ingo Swann, as measured by a group of ratings of congruence (between Swann's drawings and the locale being 'viewed') by 40 experimentally blind participants[6] during stimulation with complex magnetic fields using a circumcerebral (around the head) eight-channel system. In 2010, Persinger (et al.) published a report of his work with the psychic Sean Harribance,[7] reporting that blind-rated accuracies in his psychic insights correlated with specific Quantitative Electroencephalography profiles; specifically, congruence between activity over the left temporal lobe of those being 'read' by Mr. Harribance and his right temporal lobe.[8] "The results indicate even exceptional skills previously attributed to aberrant sources are variations of normal cerebral dynamics associated with intuition and may involve small but discrete changes in proximal energy"



en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing I found was a failed attempt by the swedes which persinger explains as an incorrect computer set up.

The only published attempt, by a research group in Sweden, to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding.[11] Persinger responded that the Swedish group had an incorrect computer setup,[12] a claim that the Swedish group dispute,[13] and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind,[14] although the Swedish group have also disputed this.[13]

reply to post by itsthetooth


So again: What we have is one guy making a claim, peer reviews not holding up, and it's basically his word against theirs. That's not PROOF!!

reply to post by itsthetooth

Define the word define.

1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”

2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.

3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly: to define one's responsibilities.

4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.

5. to make clear the outline or form of: The roof was boldly defined against the sky.

Definition of define

We can simplify those terms into single words if it helps you Colin.

And again you show your lack of education. No you cannot.

Ok lets scrap in the wild just for you, and change it to "Wild".

You abuse the title of moron

Just because you ignore my definitions and terms doesn't mean I have lost a debate. Your an oddball.

And you are an unintelligent minow who will never learn one single thing. You cannot even understand how your own language works.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

And again. I want to know what you meant by IN THE WILD. As is. Anything that lives in the wild.

Well not everything lives in the wild. When people live in civilization, that is not considered to be in the wild, as the definition explains. So in other words, anything not in civilization.

That only makes sense to you. Pig thick does not do you justice.

Edit
Your even too dense to understand you have lost this debate by refusing to join in even to the point of suppying nothing to back up your fantasy. You are a dishonest liar, the only thing you have proven, and actually the only proof you have supplied and provided evidence for.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So again: What we have is one guy making a claim, peer reviews not holding up, and it's basically his word against theirs. That's not PROOF!!

Now see, I see this a lot differently. A DR is making claims and others that have no announced title are disputing his findings. Anyone can dispute findings, but the fact is that he still has the results of his tests, and no one else is able to explain it otherwise.

reply to post by colin42

You abuse the title of moron

Well I do have to sink to moronic levels to help you understand.

And you are an unintelligent minow who will never learn one single thing. You cannot even understand how your own language works

Hey I'm not the idiot asking repeatedly for terms and definitions.

reply to post by colin42

That only makes sense to you. Pig thick does not do you justice

Took it from a dictionary, so your having a problem understanding a dictionary, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So again: What we have is one guy making a claim, peer reviews not holding up, and it's basically his word against theirs. That's not PROOF!!

Now see, I see this a lot differently. A DR is making claims and others that have no announced title are disputing his findings. Anyone can dispute findings, but the fact is that he still has the results of his tests, and no one else is able to explain it otherwise.

How do you know the guys at the RESEARCH institute don't have any titles? And I'm sorry to burst your bubble there, that's how science works. Someone comes up with a theory, and the other scientists get to poke holes into that theory. Only if it withstands peer reviews like that can a theory survive...like the theory of evolution for example.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Let me get this straight.

You belief that

God was a murderous prick with control issues that was mental.

And that this murderous prick created everything, even thought there is absolutely no evidence of any God.

And this imaginary God (again, no evidence), who is a "murderous prick with control issues," is the reason we are all here today?


And Evolution, with all the evidence presented, you say is false?

I am still astounded that you pray to and have faith in a "God [who] was a murderous prick with control issues that was mental."

Sounds like devil worship to me....

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

That only makes sense to you. Pig thick does not do you justice

Took it from a dictionary, so your having a problem understanding a dictionary, there is something seriously wrong with you.

You took the garbage below from a dictionary Take the dictionary back to where you got it as you was again taken in by another snake oil salesman.

Well not everything lives in the wild. When people live in civilization, that is not considered to be in the wild, as the definition explains. So in other words, anything not in civilization.

You really have not got a clue have you dink?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Hey I'm not the idiot asking repeatedly for terms and definitions.

Nope. Your the idiot that cannot give a definition for the terms you made up and use yet, expect me to accept you using them. Changing the terms to suit your current lie.

I even helped you with 'target food' and you cannot even provide your updated version. No wonder you lost this debate so badly.

I noticed you did not comment on the definition of define I supplied as aked for by you. Why is that?

It puts you in a place where you cannot keep claiming you dont understand what you are being asked for, so as usual you turn your blind eye to it.

reply to post by colin42

Nope. Your the idiot that cannot give a definition for the terms you made up and use yet, expect me to accept you using them. Changing the terms to suit your current lie.

That would be because you are the idiot that keeps thinking I made terms up, even though I have explained over and over that in fact I haven't, and in fact they have already been created...


Here are some google hits that come up just from typing "in the wild."

en.wikipedia.org...

www.bagheera.com...

www.inthewildproductions.com...

www.nbc.com...

www.wildernessatthesmokies.com...

davotrip.blogspot.com...

It's such a common term that somone named there company after it...

www.inthewild.org...

The term was so common that they even named a television series after it...
www.imdb.com...

I even helped you with 'target food' and you cannot even provide your updated version. No wonder you lost this debate so badly

There is not , and will be no updated version for the fifth time.

I noticed you did not comment on the definition of define I supplied as aked for by you. Why is that?

Because I was pretending to be a total Colin for the moment, and ignore it.

It puts you in a place where you cannot keep claiming you dont understand what you are being asked for, so as usual you turn your blind eye to it.

The only blind eye here is one that you hold.

reply to post by colin42

You took the garbage below from a dictionary Take the dictionary back to where you got it as you was again taken in by another snake oil salesman

When someone wont believe in a dictionary, it just goes to show you how incredulous your being.

You really have not got a clue have you dink?

It's a fact, and one that seems you could benefit from. Not everything lives in the wild. We have civilization and we have in nature. Do you realize there is actually a difference? Or have you damaged your brain to the point that you actually believe we all live in the wild. Do you sleep outside, or indoors? Probably outside.

Whoa whoa whoa, girls, girls, calm down now!

Let's keep it civilized!

reply to post by colin42


I think I have discovered what is wrong with you Colin. The next time you see a doctor, if they have any in the bush, you need to check yourself for whats called a mid life crisis.

divorcesupport.about.com...

You have seem to have fallen into some sort of odd miss understanding that there is no difference between nature and civilization. There is actually a big difference.

Of course what man has overlooked even though they have realized this, is that there is a very good reason why we seperate ourselves from nature, we aren't from here.

I can see on the other hand that you have personally chosen to not only not accept the definitions, but to also ignore there meanings. You are living in your own world, fabricated by the absence of definitions to add stability to your belief of evolution. What you have to realize is that evolution did not make everything else, rather everything else appears to have made evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

That would be because you are the idiot that keeps thinking I made terms up, even though I have explained over and over that in fact I haven't, and in fact they have already been created...

As usual ALL your links failed to explain what you meant by IN THE WILD. They actually explained nothing. Another epic fail by you.

The sad thing is you will not admit that you cannot give a valid description.

It's such a common term that somone named there company after it...

Should be easy for you to give your definition of it then, but alas you have failed many times

The term was so common that they even named a television series after it...

Yes they name a lot of programes with meaningless names. It does not give me the definition of your use of in the wild.

There is not , and will be no updated version for the fifth time.

Good. Then you will not be using the stupid term 'target food' again then

Because I was pretending to be a total Colin for the moment, and ignore it.

Pretending is a trait of yours. I prefer to call it lying. I do not ignore your posts. I think very little of them but you get your responses every time.

Still again you have failed to comment on the definition of define you asked me for. As usual when you get an answer you do not like you ignore and avoid it as you are doing here.

The only blind eye here is one that you hold.

Pi$$ poor english again. How does one HOLD a blind eye. Another garbled reply from you.