Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

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.

I'm still waiting to learn what my gramma has to do with any of this.

reply to post by itsthetooth
another waste of your time. Until you supply those definitions I have no interest in anything you type.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

You are without doubt the most deluded person on this planet.

I asked for those that think evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to it. I have stated it many times in this thread and the best you could come up with was ................. ........... God used spare parts

So you have spent in the region of 370 pages and have seen me type that many times and your understanding of the OP is

Of course you started this thread out with the assumption that there is evidence of evolution that needs to be set aside.

I am now thinking you may be unable to read anything at all which results in an understanding of what was written

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

How ignorant is that statement. Here is the comment you made (not a term BTW)

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

If your comment predates time it means so does the theory of evolution. My reply to you was correct

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'

Predates time indeed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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.

I'm still waiting to learn what my gramma has to do with any of this.

And you pour more shame over yourself. I wrote gramma and not grammar and you think you have scored a point. You did not comment on the information supplied in that link to show you had read it and believe me when I say. YOU really need to read it.

reply to post by colin42

And you pour more shame over yourself. I wrote gramma and not grammar and you think you have scored a point. You did not comment on the information supplied in that link to show you had read it and believe me when I say. YOU really need to read it.

I did read it and in fact also did a word search for the word gramma and came up with nothing.

reply to post by colin42

another waste of your time. Until you supply those definitions I have no interest in anything you type.

As I still await your definition of the word gramma.

Come on, guys, this is such a stupid argument.

reply to post by colin42

God used spare parts

Uhm, I never said that. Maybe you better go back and read it again because its not even close.

reply to post by colin42

If your comment predates time it means so does the theory of evolution. My reply to you was correct

Thats only because your assuming evolution was in motion at that time, which there is no proof of. But again assuming is the golden direction of evolution, and I'm not going to hold evolution to that, just the peeps on this thread.

I have never run into a more missinformed group of peeps in my life. The funny part on how I know they are not understanding evolution is because I'm going by the links they sent me.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Come on, guys, this is such a stupid argument.

The problem is Happy. Until tooth starts to act with honesty I dont see how this thread can move forward.

His nonsense terms either need to be defined so that he cannot do his normal spin or they need to be dropped. He will do neither.

How hard can it be to write down what he means by 'target food' or 'unnatural food' or 'redundant adaption'? I will tell you why he refuses because his game will be up

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

God used spare parts

Uhm, I never said that. Maybe you better go back and read it again because its not even close.

I'll go back when you have supplied the definitions

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

If your comment predates time it means so does the theory of evolution. My reply to you was correct

Thats only because your assuming evolution was in motion at that time, which there is no proof of. But again assuming is the golden direction of evolution, and I'm not going to hold evolution to that, just the peeps on this thread.

I have never run into a more missinformed group of peeps in my life. The funny part on how I know they are not understanding evolution is because I'm going by the links they sent me.

Again you reply to what you thought you read and not what was written.

Is this why you have such a block when it comes to definining your made up terms?

reply to post by colin42

The problem is Happy. Until tooth starts to act with honesty I dont see how this thread can move forward.

His nonsense terms either need to be defined so that he cannot do his normal spin or they need to be dropped. He will do neither.

How hard can it be to write down what he means by 'target food' or 'unnatural food' or 'redundant adaption'? I will tell you why he refuses because his game will be up

I have repeated the definitions dozens of times. Then you claim that they are terms not single words, yet when I look up the definition for terms it says it can be a single word or more. So your full of it colin. And lying by claiming I havent issued terms or definitions is not only false but a weak lie to try to make me look bad when you are simply ignoring them. Anyone can go back and see that I have in fact supplied all definitions.

reply to post by colin42

Again you reply to what you thought you read and not what was written.

Is this why you have such a block when it comes to definining your made up terms?

Your on a deluded cloud and you still haven't presented me with the meaning of the word gramma.

reply to post by colin42

Again you reply to what you thought you read and not what was written.

Is this why you have such a block when it comes to definining your made up terms?

I also noticed how your running from the question I asked you about why it took you 54 pages to start questioning the definition of target food, where you had commented prior to it as though you understood.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

The problem is Happy. Until tooth starts to act with honesty I dont see how this thread can move forward.

His nonsense terms either need to be defined so that he cannot do his normal spin or they need to be dropped. He will do neither.

How hard can it be to write down what he means by 'target food' or 'unnatural food' or 'redundant adaption'? I will tell you why he refuses because his game will be up

I have repeated the definitions dozens of times. Then you claim that they are terms not single words, yet when I look up the definition for terms it says it can be a single word or more. So your full of it colin. And lying by claiming I havent issued terms or definitions is not only false but a weak lie to try to make me look bad when you are simply ignoring them. Anyone can go back and see that I have in fact supplied all definitions.

Failed again. I dont know why you think if you lie to me often enough that I will accept them.

You have NEVER given the definitions for your made up terms. You have given the definitions for the words contained within them but as I have explained to you many times that is not the same.

Are you really telling me that you made up these terms but cannot even with your own words describe their meaning?

You can keep replying like this and you will get the same response. Supply those definitions

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Again you reply to what you thought you read and not what was written.

Is this why you have such a block when it comes to definining your made up terms?

I also noticed how your running from the question I asked you about why it took you 54 pages to start questioning the definition of target food, where you had commented prior to it as though you understood.

And you have run from ID's post showing you to be completely wrong on this account as well.

Your nonsense terms have been questioned by myself and others since your arrival. You have never explained them. I conclude even you, the person that made them up cannot describe their meaning because they are meaningless nonsense.

The real question here is why you refuse to supply them and use them when you know they have no meaning?

reply to post by colin42

Failed again. I dont know why you think if you lie to me often enough that I will accept them.

Well thats a non sequitur, but your used to being the way huh? You hardly ever answer a direct question. I'm still wanting to know why it took you 54 pages to then realize you don't understand what the meaning of something you have been argueing over is about.

You have NEVER given the definitions for your made up terms. You have given the definitions for the words contained within them but as I have explained to you many times that is not the same.

Here is the thing about that Colin, if you honestly feel that I made the terms up, then that means I would be entitled to call them as I see fit, which you reject my answers on. So which is it, did I make them up, or are they not made up and your not accepting wiki's definitions of them?

Are you really telling me that you made up these terms but cannot even with your own words describe their meaning?

If you supply which ones you want definitions to, I will deliver.

You can keep replying like this and you will get the same response. Supply those definitions

to which ones?

re·dun·dant/riˈdəndənt/Adjective: 1.No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2.(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.

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

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

food/fo͞od/Noun: Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
Synonyms: nourishment - fare - nutriment - aliment - pabulum

tar·get/ˈtärgit/Noun: A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Verb: Select as an object of attention or attack.
Synonyms: aim - mark - goal - objective - object - purpose