Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42


Speaking of claims of me not winning this debate, it was actually you that claimed a debate isn't to win or lose.

reply to post by colin42


Evolution proves itself wrong by not being able to explain its fundamental foundations, such as how DNA appeared.

reply to post by IamJoy

Evolution proves itself wrong by not being able to explain its fundamental foundations, such as how DNA appeared.

Thats very true. I never could understand how we all evolved from slime. Who made the slime, and yes who programmed the DNA.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So which one are you lying about? Did I not supply them or did you reject them?

Obviously your poor reading skills have let you down again as I already clearly explained your error. Here it is again

1. you have never once supplied them, any of them.
2. I rejected the words you defined that were contained within your made up terms as they do not define the meaning of those terms.
3. I know they are wrong because you refuse to supply them. You cannot link to them. You cannot even define them using your own words.
4. They are meaningless, just like your argument.

In full, not just the ones you cherry picked to suit your cause.

The only problem is that you claim my definitions to be wrong yet your also saying they don't exist in any dictionary, so which one did you lie about?

Your lack of reading skills and lack of knowledge around the use of English is again highlighted. The definitions you supplied were to the words contained in your made up terms, not the terms meaning.

So your supplied definitions for words were not correct when describing the meaning of your made up terms. so my original statement is correct.

If I'm stumping you (which I obviously am) I seriously doubt that they are meaningless, and there is no way I could have lost any debate.

Its not called stumping, its called stone walling. You refuse to supply the definitions so you can continue your dishonest behaviour. By default you have lost credibility and the chance to get anyone to listen to your thoughts which means YOU LOST BIG TIME.

Just because you reject them without reason or proof of why doesn't mean I lost any debate. Maybe in your mind but thats it.

No. It means exactly what I described quoted below for you again.

They have become the symbol of your defeat and your failure. You have never been able to back up your arguments and now not even the terms you made up to hide from the truth. Face it. You lost, big time.

You aslo stated on page 367

My definitions have already appeared, and will no longer appear, unless someone else asks. I'm sorry but you lost this one. You don't win a debate by ignoring the other person.

ID has questioned you about definitions and clearly showed and backed up others doing the same over many pages.

You committed to supplying the definitions if someone else asked for them, they have. Supply those definitions

reply to post by itsthetooth
I'll let ID respond to your pathetic reply to his post but this is almost comedy

This tells me you either are not understanding the concept of target food, or didn't understand that there was a seperate idea that was created that could explain how everything must evolve together.

Do you know why no one understands your made up term, in this case 'Target food'? Because you have never explained what you mean by 'target food' in any meaningful way. Its a nonsense until you do.

BTW thanks for supplying a great example of why you need to provide those definitions. Still waiting.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Speaking of claims of me not winning this debate, it was actually you that claimed a debate isn't to win or lose.

Yep That is what I told you. You have lost the chance to be taken seriously. You have lost any credibility you may have had and lost the trust of anyone that use to try to debate with you.

If you cannot see that you have lost, big time on this and any other thread you intend to pollute then you are more deluded than I give you credit for.

Originally posted by IamJoy
reply to post by colin42

 

Evolution proves itself wrong by not being able to explain its fundamental foundations, such as how DNA appeared.

Even without DNA there is more than enough evidence backing evolution. What do you mean by DNA 'appearing'?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by IamJoy

 

Evolution proves itself wrong by not being able to explain its fundamental foundations, such as how DNA appeared.

Thats very true. I never could understand how we all evolved from slime. Who made the slime, and yes who programmed the DNA.

Funny enough there is an infinitely greater explanation for the 'appearance' of DNA than there is for any of the definitions of your made up terms.

370 pages and you still dont understand that evolution does not and cannot talk about how life started or as you put it in your baby language. 'Who made the slime'

BTW your paragraph should end with a question mark.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Good. Can we get back to our regularly scheduled programming now? Er, I mean the thread topic?

We already are on this topic, of how its false and not even possible.

That wasn't the topic, Tooth. The topic was showing diversity by some means other than evolution.

I wonder how many man-hours have been wasted on the 370 pages of this debate...?

Seems like it is a debate that will never go away - at least until the Truth is revealed on a global scale.

reply to post by colin42

Obviously your poor reading skills have let you down again as I already clearly explained your error. Here it is again

I seriously doubt that as you are the one claiming that a term cannot be a single word, and I just supplied a definition saying it can.

1. you have never once supplied them, any of them.
2. I rejected the words you defined that were contained within your made up terms as they do not define the meaning of those terms.
3. I know they are wrong because you refuse to supply them. You cannot link to them. You cannot even define them using your own words.
4. They are meaningless, just like your argument.

In full, not just the ones you cherry picked to suit your cause.

I'll take your lack of an answer as you admitting to lying twice on these questions.

Your lack of reading skills and lack of knowledge around the use of English is again highlighted. The definitions you supplied were to the words contained in your made up terms, not the terms meaning.

Thats correct, and only becuase after providing you with terms, you then turned around and asked for meaning on those as well.

Its not called stumping, its called stone walling. You refuse to supply the definitions so you can continue your dishonest behaviour. By default you have lost credibility and the chance to get anyone to listen to your thoughts which means YOU LOST BIG TIME.

I supplied them many times, and you ignoring them is just a clear indication that you are stuck and don't know how to reply, in other words I won.

No. It means exactly what I described quoted below for you again.


They have become the symbol of your defeat and your failure. You have never been able to back up your arguments and now not even the terms you made up to hide from the truth. Face it. You lost, big time.

You aslo stated on page 367


My definitions have already appeared, and will no longer appear, unless someone else asks. I'm sorry but you lost this one. You don't win a debate by ignoring the other person.

ID has questioned you about definitions and clearly showed and backed up others doing the same over many pages.

You committed to supplying the definitions if someone else asked for them, they have. Supply those definitions

So now your admitting that I have answered other people when they ask for the definitions. So your once admitting that you have lied.
Not only did you lose, but you lied big time, multiple times.

reply to post by colin42

I'll let ID respond to your pathetic reply to his post but this is almost comedy


This tells me you either are not understanding the concept of target food, or didn't understand that there was a seperate idea that was created that could explain how everything must evolve together.

Do you know why no one understands your made up term, in this case 'Target food'? Because you have never explained what you mean by 'target food' in any meaningful way. Its a nonsense until you do.

BTW thanks for supplying a great example of why you need to provide those definitions. Still waiting.

I'm still waiting for a definition of gramma.

reply to post by colin42

Speaking of claims of me not winning this debate, it was actually you that claimed a debate isn't to win or lose.
Yep That is what I told you. You have lost the chance to be taken seriously. You have lost any credibility you may have had and lost the trust of anyone that use to try to debate with you.

If you cannot see that you have lost, big time on this and any other thread you intend to pollute then you are more deluded than I give you credit for

Lets be honest with one another, you lost this debate a long time ago. As a matter of fact your loss started back when you were trying to place an association with ants, and humans, but then you topped it off when you came up with the house sparrow. I specifically asked for a species that has a relationship with man and you give me a bird that has a relationship with mans homes. Then to make matters worse your stubborn and demand that it applys when it doesn't. Sorry, you lost big time. You were also never able to come up with target food even though you tried, you failed. Then to try to fix the fact that you failed you started demanding definitions. Why would you supply examples of such without ever knowing the definitions to begin with. It's because your lying.

reply to post by colin42

Even without DNA there is more than enough evidence backing evolution. What do you mean by DNA 'appearing'?

This question... good job on using a question mark by the way....is just proof of how deluded the whole idea of evoltuion is. There had to be some type of intelligence that arranged those protiens in the fashion that they are. Of course to evolutionists it just magically happend. There must be a super bug of sorts that not only knows how to design DNA but also change it, since thats what evolution is about.

This super bug must be smart enough to see into the future and know that humans will eventually need what came to be called "adaptation." This super bug must also be smart enough to work its magic in a way that eludes us still to this day. Whats shocking is how something so powerfull and so smart is so SLOW. This super bug works so slow and on such a small scale that it avoids detection. I'm not counting speciation as that could be and as far as I'm concearned be different.

You honestly believe in such a thing, yet aliens planting us here is hard to imagine. Meh, I'll tell you what, I have never been as sure about anything in my life as I am about intervention. I'm sure evolution does not exist in the deluded way its being staged on this thread. Speciation which I do feel is very real, but only happens to and has only been witnessed in specific species, in itself is not proof of evoltuion. When a species changes and remains to be the same species, that is not proof of evolution.

I'm sorry but your wrong.

reply to post by colin42

Funny enough there is an infinitely greater explanation for the 'appearance' of DNA than there is for any of the definitions of your made up terms.

370 pages and you still dont understand that evolution does not and cannot talk about how life started or as you put it in your baby language. 'Who made the slime'

BTW your paragraph should end with a question mark.

My term that you refer to as baby language, pre dates time...

Primordial slime aka Bathybius haeckelii

en.wikipedia.org...

And I'm still waiting on a definition for the word gramma.

reply to post by itsthetooth
I know with your demonstrated low level of understanding this will go over your head but your terms were no single words. Supply those definitions

I'll take your lack of an answer as you admitting to lying twice on these questions

You had your answer. Here it is again

Your lack of reading skills and lack of knowledge around the use of English is again highlighted. The definitions you supplied were to the words contained in your made up terms, not the terms meaning.

Thats correct, and only becuase after providing you with terms, you then turned around and asked for meaning on those as well.

Please show where I did that. Your dishonesty really knows no bounds does it.

I supplied them many times, and you ignoring them is just a clear indication that you are stuck and don't know how to reply, in other words I won.

See above

So now your admitting that I have answered other people when they ask for the definitions. So your once admitting that you have lied.

The depths at which you demonstrate your inability to read what is in front of you is pretty much lengendary. ID pointed out others have challenge your made up terms over many pages and you refused to define them as well.

You try to hide another challenge to your honesty by hiding it in a quote so I will repeat it. you wrote:

My definitions have already appeared, and will no longer appear, unless someone else asks. I'm sorry but you lost this one. You don't win a debate by ignoring the other person.

Despite you lying about supplying the definitions I asked for, someone else has asked for them as well. So instead of acting with honour and providing them you throw a childish hissy and start name calling.

You need to accept you have lost any standing in this debate. The fact that you cannot and will not supply any definition acts as a huge banner to display your dishonesty on.

reply to post by HappyBunny

That wasn't the topic, Tooth. The topic was showing diversity by some means other than evolution.

I know happy, and the reason your pointing this out to me, makes it clear to me that your completly missing the point. Probably my fault after hundreds of pages.

Intervention and transpermia totally changes the ideas and understanding of how things are and how they came to be. I should say the possibilities of how things came to be.

Evolution is only looking at life on this planet and assuming that everything here is from here and belongs here.
Evolution is only considering life on this planet as an explanation for the begining of life itself.
It's a very narrow minded approach, that is obviously wrong. There is other life out there, and we have this little book called the bible that is not only reminding us of this, but also telling us that this is how we got our start on this planet. In other words that we arne't from here.

Now I understand how narrow minded people think and I know it can be hard to think outside the box at times. Just let me remind you that the earth is not flat, space travel is possilble, and its not ok to date your sister.
Evolution demands answers from the limited idea that earth is all we ever need to think about. If you still think inside the box like the aformentioned, imagine what you will learn tomorrow when we are able to visit other life in the cosmos.
It's going to totally change and destroy most understanding of evolution. This isn't a debate about evolution over creation either. I find it hard to believe in either one of them as they both leave more questions abound.

We have aruged about this and as far as I'm concearned I have not been presented with any proof that the multi stage hypothesis of evolution is how we got where we are today. I do however believe that this book we have thats telling us how we got here, should be given a tad more credit than it is. What a coincidence we all want to know how we got here, and we just so happen to have a book written back in the begining days that explains it. I understand there are things in the bible that are to hard to swallow, I never said we know all there is to know either. One bad grape on a vine does not destroy the whole batch. In other words I feel there are still many good important parts in the bible.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I'll let ID respond to your pathetic reply to his post but this is almost comedy


This tells me you either are not understanding the concept of target food, or didn't understand that there was a seperate idea that was created that could explain how everything must evolve together.

Do you know why no one understands your made up term, in this case 'Target food'? Because you have never explained what you mean by 'target food' in any meaningful way. Its a nonsense until you do.

BTW thanks for supplying a great example of why you need to provide those definitions. Still waiting.

I'm still waiting for a definition of gramma.

Pathetic avoidance. Your example from your own keyboard shows exactly why those definitions are needed. Your reply here shows your dishonest intent not to.

You have been caught out and called out. You have failed to answer that call. Face it. You have been exposed and you have lost and the loss gets bigger with every reply you give like the one above.

reply to post by colin42


Colin I'm begining to think your psycotic.

Of course you started this thread out with the assumption that there is evidence of evolution that needs to be set aside. Here I am almost 400 pages later and I'm waiting for a shred of it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Lets be honest with one another, you lost this debate a long time ago. As a matter of fact your loss started back when you were trying to place an association with ants, and humans, but then you topped it off when you came up with the house sparrow. I specifically asked for a species that has a relationship with man and you give me a bird that has a relationship with mans homes. Then to make matters worse your stubborn and demand that it applys when it doesn't. Sorry, you lost big time. You were also never able to come up with target food even though you tried, you failed. Then to try to fix the fact that you failed you started demanding definitions. Why would you supply examples of such without ever knowing the definitions to begin with. It's because your lying.

Another attempt to move away from your made up terms. Another failure.

You had your chance to discuss ants, house sparrows and you left out wolves. You decided to run instead. That chance has gone. Supply those definitions or as you are doing now continue to strip away what little dignity you have left.