Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

Whats funny is that I haven't rejected a single thing when it comes to evolution, and still I have won this debate. You on the other hand felt there was no other way to appear to have won unless you rejected wiki definitions.

No. What's funny is that you have rejected everything and all evidence given you and never once gave a reasoned argument for why and yet you expect people to accept what you say above which is a very obvious lie.

To have won this debate you needed to have entered into it. What you did was act like a child by refuseing to look while shouting 'I aint listening'. You lost big time. The debate and your credibility.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So I decided that I could probably get you some better links with definitions.

This should be good

Here is natural food... en.wikipedia.org...

You chump. Not only does this link only deal with what can be sold under the title of organic/natural food it also states

the term "natural" is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning.

Did you not read your own link AGAIN or just select parts that suited you?

Here is one under living in the wild... www.natureskills.com...

Again you berk you have linked to a survival guide. How to survive in the WILDERNESS again not IN THE WILD and again not in the context in which you used it.

and here is one from in the wild, which is an advert for a business. All have the word wilderness in common.

You never fail to show your ignorance do you. Yes it has the word wilderness. No it does not say anything about IN THE WILD and certainly not in the context you used it. It infact offers a holiday in a DOME

What does the word wilderness mean to YOU? I would be interested in knowing since you think there is no difference between living in the wild and living in civilization.

Wilderness Read the definition supplied and there is obviously a huge difference between wilderness and living in civilisation and living IN THE WILD.

So I have showed you my definition for the second time, now show me yours.

In case you don't know what wilderness means, here is a wiki on it en.wikipedia.org...

Never asked for the definition of wilderness. Asked for your definiton of IN THE WILD. You still have not provided it.

Yes in case it has eluded you, there is a big difference between civilization and wildlife.

Not eluded me but you seem unable to grasp it. There is also a big difference of your usage of IN THE WILD.

This is why we have to prepare for things like camping, where if we were actually home, we would already be prepared.

Your use of the English language is truly appalling. If we were actually at home we would not be camping so what is your point?

So yet again your links are pathetic and mirror your argument perfectly

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

No- in other words your a huckster that lacks any discernible reading comprehension.

I dont know about that, your the one that believes a postulate, hypothesis is scientific fact.

I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just say that Tooth has discounted his brain as a useless organ.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

I have seen all of Blargcakes's nettlesome stances, in few posts he fails to have basic principle and substance. let me add that these ignorant assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are written.
If you wish to discuss this topic with us you must first bring something to the table, objective evidence is in order. You will soon learn that few of us buy into wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic.

In other words you think its totally logical for a fish to turn into a monkey !

And that pretty much sums up your understanding of the theory of evolution...no wonder you keep on posting so much nonsense

I dont know about that, your the one that believes a postulate, hypothesis is scientific fact.

The THEORY of evolution is a THEORY and not a hypothesis. I know you have trouble getting the difference, but it's a fact

reply to post by colin42

No. What's funny is that you have rejected everything and all evidence given you and never once gave a reasoned argument for why and yet you expect people to accept what you say above which is a very obvious lie.

To have won this debate you needed to have entered into it. What you did was act like a child by refuseing to look while shouting 'I aint listening'. You lost big time. The debate and your credibility.

Which is obviously wrong especially since I know more about evolution then you do about intervention.

You also missed the fact that I accept everything I have learned about evolution. Just like wiki explains with speciation and all of the connecting theorys along with it.

It's an unproven theory, and every single person on here has admitted to me that macroevolution has never been witnessed, therefore its an unproven theory.

reply to post by flyingfish

I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just say that Tooth has discounted his brain as a useless organ.

Hey I'm doing most of the work here.

reply to post by MrXYZ

And that pretty much sums up your understanding of the theory of evolution...no wonder you keep on posting so much nonsense

It doesn't matter how limited my understanding is, I would never believe that a fish could turn into a monkey.

The THEORY of evolution is a THEORY and not a hypothesis. I know you have trouble getting the difference, but it's a fact

I have already quoted you text and site that says differently, and its an evolution site at that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It doesn't matter how limited my understanding is, I would never believe that a fish could turn into a monkey.

Well then...you'll be happy to hear that this isn't anything scientists believe in either

I have to ask: Is this how you understand the theory? After all those threads?

I have already quoted you text and site that says differently, and its an evolution site at that.

No...what you did was link a website that has the words "hypothetical", "postulated", and "theory" spread out over a text. You then linked them together claiming a "hypothetical postulated theory" is something that exists

That's like reading a zoology book and claiming a "manbearpig" exists because each of those words are somewhere in that book. It's silly and very very laughable.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Which is obviously wrong especially since I know more about evolution then you do about intervention.

Clearly the absolute nonsense you base your argument on says different. Other supporters of intervention do not claim 'target food', 'unworldly hands', 'excessive adaption', 'redundant adaption', 'animals of the outdoors' to mention a few as part of their supporting evidence and in fact for most theories intervention could only work using the mechanics described by evolution.

I would say that supporters of intervention have a good theory it lacks any real proof. You on the other hand are just a thick, deluded fantasist with no logical reasoning power and no credibility at all.

You also missed the fact that I accept everything I have learned about evolution. Just like wiki explains with speciation and all of the connecting theorys along with it.

Yes your comments about a fish becoming a monkey shows how much you have learnt. Nothing, and nothing is what you have accepted. After 400+ pages you should feel shame showing that lack of understanding.

It's an unproven theory, and every single person on here has admitted to me that macroevolution has never been witnessed, therefore its an unproven theory.

You have had this explained many times and in many ways. Again you have shown not even to have learned the most basic use of English and what evolution explains and what a theory is in science. I am not about to repeat the wasted exercise.

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

No- in other words your a huckster that lacks any discernible reading comprehension.

I dont know about that, your the one that believes a postulate, hypothesis is scientific fact.

I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just say that Tooth has discounted his brain as a useless organ.

Could that be an example of REDUNDANT ADAPTION?

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

No- in other words your a huckster that lacks any discernible reading comprehension.

I dont know about that, your the one that believes a postulate, hypothesis is scientific fact.

I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just say that Tooth has discounted his brain as a useless organ.

Could that be an example of REDUNDANT ADAPTION?

Good point, it seems to fit his made up terminology.
Here is another nail you can add to Tooth's coffin

Ok, the personal attacks end now or peoples posting privileges will. No further verbal warnings.

Why are people still posting in this thread? I thought most informed people had learned evolution was proven to be fake decades ago? This is what evolution teaches.

Fish were swimming in the ocean millions of years ago (don't ask evolutionists were they came from, unless you want to see them cry). one fish decides to flop onto land. it does and dies. other fish see this, and do the same. for thousands of years millions of fish kill themselves by flopping onto land. Until one day, one fish can breathe air (lol wtf?) and that fish flops around and dies because it can't eat or move efficently. now for thousands of years fish are flopping around on land and dying a few days later until one day another fish grows legs (lol wtf?) this legged fish runs around and eats bugs (lol where did they come from?). after thousands of years of dying in the winter, another fish grows fur (lol wtf) and becomes a monkey (lmao).

that is what evolution teaches. as you can see, it makes no sense and for that reason it is considered a funny science fiction plot, but is not considered a true scientific fact

reply to post by MrXYZ

Well then...you'll be happy to hear that this isn't anything scientists believe in either

I have to ask: Is this how you understand the theory? After all those threads?

Well I understand what your saying. I don't think anyone believes that a fish turns into a monkey. However in a long drawn out process, it does end up that way. I for one would never be able to believe in such fantasy.

No...what you did was link a website that has the words "hypothetical", "postulated", and "theory" spread out over a text. You then linked them together claiming a "hypothetical postulated theory" is something that exists

Yes and you must have been absent the several times that I indicated that I had forgotten to place a comma between them.


The thing you keep dropping the ball on is that evolution is not just a theory, but several theorys claimed to work together. IMO they don't work at all. So I laugh each time you keep saying the theory of evolution.
It's more like the page I was quoting, and I believe in, that evolution is nothing more than a bunch of hypothesis trying to work together. At best most of which have never been proven to be true.

www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by colin42

Clearly the absolute nonsense you base your argument on says different. Other supporters of intervention do not claim 'target food', 'unworldly hands', 'excessive adaption', 'redundant adaption', 'animals of the outdoors' to mention a few as part of their supporting evidence and in fact for most theories intervention could only work using the mechanics described by evolution.

First of all evolution doesn't explain how we all got here, and it sure doesn't explain how we have so many species either. None of that nonesense has ever been proven, and if I'm wrong please link me up to some actuall proof, not these links saying that evolution is a postulate or hypothesis.

This is why I keep saying that its more like a poor rube goldburg machine that doesn't work. It's obvious from everything I have read about evolution that people were just grasping at straws to find answers. None of which makes any sense I might add. According to wiki, speciation has only ever been witnessed in some aquatic life, some bacteria and viruses and some other sites also are claiming some insects. Now humans were never mentioned in the line up on this, but as I have found in most cases in dealing with people that believe in evolution, assumptions are made.

That assumption not only added humans to the list, which they were never part of, but also assumed macroevolution occurs as well, which has also never been proven or witnessed. If evolution were possible in the way you are believing it to be, life on this planet would be OH SO DIFFERENT then it is right now. We would have so many similar species, which we don't, we have species that we are unable to make ties with. Granted apes and humans share a lot of DNA but that in itself is not proof that we are related. The idea of a creator using recycled parts could easily explain why that might be.

I would say that supporters of intervention have a good theory it lacks any real proof. You on the other hand are just a thick, deluded fantasist with no logical reasoning power and no credibility at all.

If you understand intervention, which I don't believe your capable of, then you would also apprecieate the insight that looks beyond it as well, which is all that I'm doing.

Yes your comments about a fish becoming a monkey shows how much you have learnt. Nothing, and nothing is what you have accepted. After 400+ pages you should feel shame showing that lack of understanding.

IMO it would take trillions of years for a fish to branch out into a monkey. Odd that we have no connecting species between them, and also odd that we still have both of the species, just no proof of the changes. If evolution occurs unilatterly or bilatterly, or both, we would still have proof of the species inbetween. There has never been one such find.

You have had this explained many times and in many ways. Again you have shown not even to have learned the most basic use of English and what evolution explains and what a theory is in science. I am not about to repeat the wasted exercise.

Well I think that is where the problem lies, I don't want it explined to me, I want to proven to me.