Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well I know what your doing Colin. You think that by repeating over and over the mistakes I have made that people will just chalk me up to being a troll. You do seem to forget however that I have already explained that this was a typo. If you notice they are a complete contradiction of each other, and like I keep saying I was not including aquadic life in one example.

I repeat this over and over because you refuse to give a valid answer. You have not explained how it was a typo when the line that follows your so called typo you back up with support from the bible. That is not a typo. I know they are a complete contradiction which is why I ask you to explain. The problem is you do this often which is why I want those definitions.

Of course I now realize that I always should include aquatic life in the population.

Please explain how this makes any difference?

What you are overlooking is why this happened. When debating about other life here on earth, and making comparisons, aquatic life is almost never considered because they usually have very little in common with us, so I made that assumption.

Again what bearing has that on the fact you are lying about making a typo?

If anyone is trolling, its YOU. repeatedly asking the same questions over and over while I answer them over and over. I don't know what you expect to change but nothing has changed in all of the times that you keep asking the same questions over and over.

I expect you to provide the definitions for the terms you made up. I know nothing has changed as you continue to avoid providing them. I will continue to ask until you do.

Did you know that the definitinon of crazy is when someone does the same thing over and over, and expects to get different results? < Thats a question mark.<

Did you know that is not the definition of crazy? Crazy defined. In a discussion it is not crazy to expect someone who makes up terms to provide their meaning. Crazy is what you are if you think I will allow you to continue using them unchallenged.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

LOL! There's the problem! your getting incorrect information!
All you need to do is pick one (just one) of the arguments your seeing in one of these comical sites and I will gladly show you demonstrational truth.
Remember pick just one, then we will go from there and bring down the others one at a time.

You can't just pick one, they all apply. They are all valid. Unless you have something you know about one of them.

Scientists will always be able to bust evoltuionists because they know that evidence will NEVER exist. It's not an issue of who issues the claim, its an issue of people claiming proof.

What this means is that evolution will NEVER be a proven theory, and the reasons are simple. You can't prove a theory that isn't fact, and scientists know this. Evolution is a loosley held together series of hypothesis that have never been proven. Just a bunch of fantasy.

Enough with your rubbish, are you interested in debating your claims or are you just satisfied with denial. If it's an issue of claiming proof then give one example.

reply to post by colin42

I repeat this over and over because you refuse to give a valid answer. You have not explained how it was a typo when the line that follows your so called typo you back up with support from the bible. That is not a typo. I know they are a complete contradiction which is why I ask you to explain. The problem is you do this often which is why I want those definitions.

Now I know your lying because I'm quoting dictionarys and wiki pages that can't be invalid.

Please explain how this makes any difference?

It was related to the understanding of the word most. In the begining I was not considering aquadic life, and I should.

I expect you to provide the definitions for the terms you made up. I know nothing has changed as you continue to avoid providing them. I will continue to ask until you do.

Then you will find yourself in a one sided conversation.

Did you know that is not the definition of crazy? Crazy defined. In a discussion it is not crazy to expect someone who makes up terms to provide their meaning. Crazy is what you are if you think I will allow you to continue using them unchallenged.

And this is where you lost the debate because in fact I had already proven that I not only did not make up terms, but that they were already existant and I provided links for them in history. It was you that chose to ignore them.

reply to post by flyingfish

Enough with your rubbish, are you interested in debating your claims or are you just satisfied with denial. If it's an issue of claiming proof then give one example.

Depends on what your asking for, proof of intervetntion or proof that proves evolution to be false. Or proof we have tails.

reply to post by colin42

I beg to differ, I think when you have failed to produce any information that proves evoltuon in the way your understanding it to be true.

You can beg all you like but it does not make your of hand dismissal of all I and others have provided you with correct. You on the other hand have offered nothing and still refuse to define your made up terms.

Thats because none of them are made up and in fact I have proven this.

Another garbled nonsensical collection of rubbish.

Of course I expect you to ghack at proof, its all you have ever done.

And you have not supplied the definitions for the terms you made up. You want this topic and your involvemnt to move forward that is what you have to do. This silly attempt to steer the discussion away from that point is another failure on your part.

Thats because I haven't made any up, yet your stuck thinking I have. I asked a councelor about your approach to "in the wild" and how you dismiss it as a made up term. She agrees your playing with a few cards shy of a deck.

Again just because you say you did does not make it true, in fact you are lying. At best you provided links you never read yourself that actualy had a negative impact on your, at best flimsy stand point.

You mean like the Pye video link that you keep saying never got passed by peer reviews. Yet when I tell you that the human genome is public information I don't hear back from you.

Agreed what was not your opinion was sheer fantasy. Still adds up to nonsense.

The only thing that is fantasy is the adjoining hypothesis that connect evolution into what you believe in. I have read enough to see where your dropping the ball and assuming that these things happen to humans when there is clearly nothing that says so.

Oh dear. Provide the definition for redundant documentation

I'm not your teacher, if you need help with the english language, I suggest you take some classes or buy a dictionary.

This from you, what a joke.

again it wasn't a question or a joke, it was an answer to your question.

As the gramma king you should know that definitions do not appear. You have not supplied any definitions for your made up terms and you will be asked to provide them until you do or agree to stop using them. You have ignored anything spoon fed you so again this is another lesson I do not accept from you.

My gramma is not involved in this, could you please provide the definition to gramma?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Enough with your rubbish, are you interested in debating your claims or are you just satisfied with denial. If it's an issue of claiming proof then give one example.

Depends on what your asking for, proof of intervetntion or proof that proves evolution to be false. Or proof we have tails.

You know very well what the question was, I'll take your cop-out as the answer
Don't bother answering any more of my posts your officially put on ignore.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Now I know your lying because I'm quoting dictionarys and wiki pages that can't be invalid.

Not only have you failed to answer the point again you are purposely misleading. You have given the definition for the words within the terms you made up and not the defintion of those terms. You have had explained to you many times now the difference so if anyone is lying here it is not me.

It was related to the understanding of the word most. In the begining I was not considering aquadic life, and I should.

And yet again for the umpteenth time that does not explain the contradiction. You refuse to put in context what 'MOST' means anyway and does not explain how :

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.

How can this be accepted as a typo when you back it up with the bible. What you call your historical document. Frankly, I dont accept it as a typo. You also dont explain this contradiction.

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

You can only be seen as being dishonest. The reason why I want those definitions so that you cannot pull these strokes. That is the reason why you refuse as you intend to carry on pulling these strokes.

Then you will find yourself in a one sided conversation.

Your approach has turned this thread into that anyway. Like I wrote before. The fact you intend not to make the terms you made up clear to all means you lost this debate and have nothing of value to add.

And this is where you lost the debate because in fact I had already proven that I not only did not make up terms, but that they were already existant and I provided links for them in history. It was you that chose to ignore them.

The very fact you have not, will not, and cannot supply the defintions to the terms you use shows without doubt you made them up and that you are yet again lying to win your argument. You have failed again despite acting like you dont understand the difference between a word and a term.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats because none of them are made up and in fact I have proven this.

You could have only proved that by supplying the definitions of the terms, not the words contained within those terms. You did not as you cannot.

It actually does not need to be from wiki. They are your terms so you can provide their meaning but you are unable to do even that. I believe you refuse to do it because you will no longer be able to lie your way out of the corners you would certainly find yourself in.

Of course I expect you to ghack at proof, its all you have ever done.

No it was garbled rubbish.

Thats because I haven't made any up, yet your stuck thinking I have. I asked a councelor about your approach to "in the wild" and how you dismiss it as a made up term. She agrees your playing with a few cards shy of a deck.

'Target Food', 'Redundant adaption', 'redundant processes' to name a few. The full list has been supplied to you too many times. Your use of 'In the wild' in the context you used it was and is meaningless. I dont give a dam who you say you asked, the fact is you have not made it clear what you meant. As for playing with a few cards short, your the one seeing a councelor.

You mean like the Pye video link that you keep saying never got passed by peer reviews. Yet when I tell you that the human genome is public information I don't hear back from you.

Yep, just like you he maintains something that he is unwilling to let others varify by with holding information.

The only thing that is fantasy is the adjoining hypothesis that connect evolution into what you believe in. I have read enough to see where your dropping the ball and assuming that these things happen to humans when there is clearly nothing that says so.

Show your proof. Just once.

I'm not your teacher, if you need help with the english language, I suggest you take some classes or buy a dictionary.

I checked on google. 'redundant documentation' does not exist in the context of evolution. Your term you define it.

again it wasn't a question or a joke, it was an answer to your question.

No I see it as a joke coming from you.

My gramma is not involved in this, could you please provide the definition to gramma?

So why did you pull me on your mistaken view of a grammatical error? Link for Gramma You should read it carefully.

reply to post by colin42

Not only have you failed to answer the point again you are purposely misleading. You have given the definition for the words within the terms you made up and not the defintion of those terms. You have had explained to you many times now the difference so if anyone is lying here it is not me.

I'm sorry, I don't buy your argument here about only accepting terms that are searchable. There are plenty of words that work together in a common way that are not found on any websites, that doesn't mean they have special meaning.

In the wild was found in a dictionary, FYI.

And yet again for the umpteenth time that does not explain the contradiction. You refuse to put in context what 'MOST' means anyway and does not explain how :

what part of MOST are you not understanding?

How can this be accepted as a typo when you back it up with the bible. What you call your historical document. Frankly, I dont accept it as a typo. You also dont explain this contradiction.

Simple, the words a lot and the word most have different meanings.

You can only be seen as being dishonest. The reason why I want those definitions so that you cannot pull these strokes. That is the reason why you refuse as you intend to carry on pulling these strokes.

So now your admitting that your harrasing me and only keep asking for the definitions in fear they might change. Well they never did change, it was just you not following directions.

Your approach has turned this thread into that anyway. Like I wrote before. The fact you intend not to make the terms you made up clear to all means you lost this debate and have nothing of value to add.


And this is where you lost the debate because in fact I had already proven that I not only did not make up terms, but that they were already existant and I provided links for them in history. It was you that chose to ignore them.

The very fact you have not, will not, and cannot supply the defintions to the terms you use shows without doubt you made them up and that you are yet again lying to win your argument. You have failed again despite acting like you dont understand the difference between a word and a term.

Yep sorry, I have no made up terms for them, they are the common meanings.

reply to post by colin42

You could have only proved that by supplying the definitions of the terms, not the words contained within those terms. You did not as you cannot

Thats not true, "in the wild" actually comes up in a dictionary.

It actually does not need to be from wiki. They are your terms so you can provide their meaning but you are unable to do even that. I believe you refuse to do it because you will no longer be able to lie your way out of the corners you would certainly find yourself in.

I see, so your saying I was changing terms earler? What terms?

No it was garbled rubbish.

That garbled rubbish holds answers to your questions.

'Target Food', 'Redundant adaption', 'redundant processes' to name a few. The full list has been supplied to you too many times. Your use of 'In the wild' in the context you used it was and is meaningless. I dont give a dam who you say you asked, the fact is you have not made it clear what you meant. As for playing with a few cards short, your the one seeing a councelor.

I never said I was seeing a councelor, I said I asked one. But there you go making assumptions again.

Again in the wild was meant as not in civilization.

Yep, just like you he maintains something that he is unwilling to let others varify by with holding information.

How can you call it witholding information when the human genome is public information.

Show your proof. Just once.

I have multiple times, and you either ignore them, or refuse to accept the truth. The funny part is they are all from evolution sites.

I checked on google. 'redundant documentation' does not exist in the context of evolution. Your term you define it.

Well as I have explained many times before. a synonym for redundant is excessive. So your the educated one, you should be smart enough to figure this out.

No I see it as a joke coming from you.

Well thats probably why you havent advanced in 400 pages, your not a serious guy.

So why did you pull me on your mistaken view of a grammatical error? Link for Gramma You should read it carefully.

I'm still waiting for a definition and explanation of your use of the word gramma.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm sorry, I don't buy your argument here about only accepting terms that are searchable. There are plenty of words that work together in a common way that are not found on any websites, that doesn't mean they have special meaning.

I dont care if you buy it or not but you need to answer the point I made not make up an answer to something else

Not only have you failed to answer the point again you are purposely misleading. You have given the definition for the words within the terms you made up and not the defintion of those terms. You have had explained to you many times now the difference so if anyone is lying here it is not me

This funny enough still applies as again you are purposely misleading with your answer. Again if you make up a term like 'redundant adaption' and you are talking about evolution you dam well have to explain what it means

what part of MOST are you not understanding?

Most people in this world are Chinese Paddy field workers. That as a discription for the whole human race in not clear enough. The same goes for your 'most animals do not have target food' and within two posts 'most animals have target food, humans dont'.

But forget MOST. I want the answer to your lie about a typo, you have been avoiding giving that answer by concentrating on the word MOST. Concentrate on the word LIE instead.

Simple, the words a lot and the word most have different meanings.

And again I ask you to explain what they mean in the context you used them? Then explain if the bible backing up what you now claim to be a typo was wrong, was the bible wrong? If you claim it was not explain why not.

So now your admitting that your harrasing me and only keep asking for the definitions in fear they might change. Well they never did change, it was just you not following directions.

You can troll for anything you want. Asking for an explanation of your made up terms is not harassment. Not providing that description is lying by avoidance. Your terms never change Are you sure? Provide the definitions and then we can all be sure they dont change cant we.

Yep sorry, I have no made up terms for them, they are the common meanings.

Then provide them. Not providing them only adds more proof you are a liar not that it is needed and sorry but you have lost this debate and have nothing of value to add.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats not true, "in the wild" actually comes up in a dictionary.

Does it? Well you have failed to provide it in the context you used it. Knowing you I'll chose to disbelieve you until you supply it.

I see, so your saying I was changing terms earler? What terms?

All of them. You have been given the list.

That garbled rubbish holds answers to your questions.

No really, it was garbled rubbish. The only answers it gives me is the level of confusion you think passes as normal.

I never said I was seeing a councelor, I said I asked one. But there you go making assumptions again.

Not a big assumption to make in your case. But speakig to, seeing, asking. Your the one that refers to a councelor.

Again in the wild was meant as not in civilization.

And you cannot see how that is not an answer? Really Civilisation Here is the definition again. Dont cherry pick at it read it all and then you may understand you have answered nothing.

How can you call it witholding information when the human genome is public information.

Did he make the human genome public information? Anyhow not interested. This thread and you and me will not move on until you supply those definitons

I have multiple times, and you either ignore them, or refuse to accept the truth. The funny part is they are all from evolution sites.

I knew you would not provide evidence as you never do.

Well as I have explained many times before. a synonym for redundant is excessive. So your the educated one, you should be smart enough to figure this out.

I checked on google. 'redundant documentation' does not exist in the context of evolution. Your term you define it.

Well thats probably why you havent advanced in 400 pages, your not a serious guy.

Again coming from you I see that as another joke

I'm still waiting for a definition and explanation of your use of the word gramma.

You dont know how to follow a link either then Grammar

reply to post by colin42

Thats not true, "in the wild" actually comes up in a dictionary.

Does it? Well you have failed to provide it in the context you used it. Knowing you I'll chose to disbelieve you until you supply it.

Here it is again...
wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.
Adverb: In an uncontrolled manner: "the bad guys shot wild".
Noun: A natural state or uncultivated or uninhabited region: "kiwis are virtually extinct in the wild".
Synonyms: adjective. savage - mad - feral
noun. wilderness - waste

I see, so your saying I was changing terms earler? What terms?

All of them. You have been given the list.

I see, so what your saying is that my terms actually didn't match any definitions when we first started (of course you have no proof of this) but now when you ask for them I'm just giving you definitions that oddly enough do match.

What terms changed?

That garbled rubbish holds answers to your questions.

No really, it was garbled rubbish. The only answers it gives me is the level of confusion you think passes as normal.

Well somewhere in that garble is truth that you chose to ignore.

I never said I was seeing a councelor, I said I asked one. But there you go making assumptions again.

Not a big assumption to make in your case. But speakig to, seeing, asking. Your the one that refers to a councelor.

Well I will say one thing, if I did choose to see a councelor, at least I'm willing to admit something is wrong, unlike yourself.

And you cannot see how that is not an answer? Really Civilisation Here is the definition again. Dont cherry pick at it read it all and then you may understand you have answered nothing.

You seriously have a comprehension problem Colin, I'm quoting the definition of wild.

Did he make the human genome public information? Anyhow not interested. This thread and you and me will not move on until you supply those definitons

Well I have already offered my definitions, but still wait for your definition on "gramma."

I knew you would not provide evidence as you never do.

I'm not going to continue to play your lame game of being blind. If you chose to not accept my answers, that is your problem. I don't see anyone else having a problem with them, and especielly wiki and dictionaries.

I checked on google. 'redundant documentation' does not exist in the context of evolution. Your term you define it.

Actually it is there a couple of times. It appears to mean excess documentation. Hey what a shocker, thats what I was telling you. Quit being such a tool.

Again coming from you I see that as another joke

Well there is no better place to share jokes than on an evolution thread.

You dont know how to follow a link either then Grammar

Oh sorry if I didn't telll you, I did actually follow the link and there was nothing there about gramma, so I still wait for a definition of the word gramma.

reply to post by itsthetooth
I have better things to do than waste my time trying to get you to join in the debate in an honest way. You had your chance and again you refuse to provide the definitions of your made up terms.

For one last time and you must be aware. the definition of wild does not explain your use of IN THE WILD. Supply the definitions to your made up terms or I will just take it that you have admitted they dont exist, you cannot supply them and you have lost this debate but are just too small to admit it.

reply to post by colin42

I have better things to do than waste my time trying to get you to join in the debate in an honest way. You had your chance and again you refuse to provide the definitions of your made up terms.

For one last time and you must be aware. the definition of wild does not explain your use of IN THE WILD. Supply the definitions to your made up terms or I will just take it that you have admitted they dont exist, you cannot supply them and you have lost this debate but are just too small to admit it.

True but if you had read the definition you would see that the term wild does give an exact example of the term "in the wild."

I'm still waiting for a definition of the word gramma, and explanation of its use.

reply to post by itsthetooth

As I have said.....GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!

I will no longer be participating on what I now see as a TOPIC where many people have provided MUCH MORE THAT ADDEQUATE PROOF that there is NO WAY TO PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG!

TOOTH....I am disapointed in your total disreguard for this MOUNTAIN of evidence.

Your response to the Human TAILBONE issue and the FACT that over 18 MILLION people currently have TAILS as some kind of Trick of Proof or of all the poor words you could use to describe this FACT....an ASSUMPTION on my part as a PROOF TO THE FACT OF EVOLUTION....just shows how illogical and desperate you have become as this MOUNTAIN of evidence that proves EVOLUTION to be a FACT....grows and grows and grows as people provide you with greater quantities of evidence.

SO...for all of you on this TOPIC...I will bid you ADIEU. I would also suggest that it has become obvious that TOOTH will bend, warp or change facts to fit his beliefs rather than admit what is FACT. Thus I recommend that you stop playing his game and stop wasting your time. He will not admit the FACTS.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42

 

Such an ignorant understanding of Evolution is evidenced by what you just wrote, its the tooth.

Evolution DOES NOT SAY a fish turned into a monkey.

You don't understand that over the time span of hundreds of millions of years there were MANY species and animals that fish evolved to and humans came from.

Oh no I understand it, I just feel it would take trillions of years for those changes to happen. Earth isn't that old so guess what that means.

Think about Corn. It was first, hundreds of years ago, a type of grass that grew in South America (many other areas as well). Corn originally didn't have no knob as it is today, and it was much much smaller.

Look what happened within only HUNDREDS OF YEARS (not thousands or millions) Evolution for corn.
The same with dogs and many other things.

So back to fish and humans. There were MANY other animals and such that Evolved from fish over the millions of years. And over hundreds of millions of years, thousands upon thousands if not much more different animals where inbetween fish and humans.


You never responded to my respond regarding your belief in a murderous God...

I think your being blind sided by the possibility of a creator using recycled parts.

I do think god was murderous, and I don't care for him.

What do you mean by, "I think your being blind sided by the possibility of a creator using recycled parts. "??????????

And expand on your statement, "I do think god was murderous, and I don't care for him."

Why are you spending so much time doing the same thing over and over again (this thread, you keep losing the debate over and over)....... why are you spending so much time debating evolution when you think "...god was murderous and [you] don't care for him."

reply to post by SplitInfinity

As I have said.....GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!

I will no longer be participating on what I now see as a TOPIC where many people have provided MUCH MORE THAT ADDEQUATE PROOF that there is NO WAY TO PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG!

TOOTH....I am disapointed in your total disreguard for this MOUNTAIN of evidence.

Your response to the Human TAILBONE issue and the FACT that over 18 MILLION people currently have TAILS as some kind of Trick of Proof or of all the poor words you could use to describe this FACT....an ASSUMPTION on my part as a PROOF TO THE FACT OF EVOLUTION....just shows how illogical and desperate you have become as this MOUNTAIN of evidence that proves EVOLUTION to be a FACT....grows and grows and grows as people provide you with greater quantities of evidence.

SO...for all of you on this TOPIC...I will bid you ADIEU. I would also suggest that it has become obvious that TOOTH will bend, warp or change facts to fit his beliefs rather than admit what is FACT. Thus I recommend that you stop playing his game and stop wasting your time. He will not admit the FACTS.
Split Infinity

No its just that I'm not going to assume to such lenghts that there is a connection when there is no proof of it. You can fantasize all you want but there is still no proof.

reply to post by Confusion42

What do you mean by, "I think your being blind sided by the possibility of a creator using recycled parts. "??????????

It was something you would have missed quite a long time back in the thread. Anyhow, a creator or even many creators could have used the same DNA to create further life. In other words recycled parts.

And expand on your statement, "I do think god was murderous, and I don't care for him."

A lot of people assume that just because I believe in what has happened in the bible that I believe in following the path of faith and worship. My understanding of what happened in the bible I'm sure is way different than anything you have ever heard of. The bible IMO is a book of genocide and murder, its not good at all. We were slaves for god.

Why are you spending so much time doing the same thing over and over again (this thread, you keep losing the debate over and over)....... why are you spending so much time debating evolution when you think "...god was murderous and [you] don't care for him."

Just because I don't follow god doesn't mean I have to believe in evolution. It's not take one or the other. There are too many other things that happened to make it that simple.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I have better things to do than waste my time trying to get you to join in the debate in an honest way. You had your chance and again you refuse to provide the definitions of your made up terms.

For one last time and you must be aware. the definition of wild does not explain your use of IN THE WILD. Supply the definitions to your made up terms or I will just take it that you have admitted they dont exist, you cannot supply them and you have lost this debate but are just too small to admit it.

True but if you had read the definition you would see that the term wild does give an exact example of the term "in the wild."

I'm still waiting for a definition of the word gramma, and explanation of its use.

You really do not have a clue do you. The WORD ******* WILD******* is not a TERM......... IN THE WILD IS. BTW its really not raelly and still waiting for your definitions. You lost until you do.

Edit: Reading the posts made by others here looks like we have all come to the same verdict. Your dishonest approach and refusal to join in the debate has resulted in a universal concensus that you lost this debate.

You even refuse to supply definitions of your own made up nonsense terms. What a legendary failure your argument, (for what it was) has been.