Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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

You just cut and pasted that from the last time I told you that defining the words does not define the term contained in that word.

I will post this again. This time respond to it DO NOT BY PASS THE POINT I AM MAKING

1. Swimming: The action of moving through water.
2. Costumes: A set of clothing or single garment that makes up an outfit.
3. Swimming costume. Clothes that you swim in so you dont get arrested for skinny dipping.
4. Costume Swimming. Means nothing at all. I would have to define meaning If I wished to use it.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition as in #4

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

Go back and read the last post from ID monster. He gives you the pages that shows you are again wrong. You appeared to have skipped that for some reason. Didnt help your argument I suppose

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?

Here is a great example of why you are considered to be totally dishonest and by more than just me. We have established that you have made up these terms. A search on any engine you choose will quickly confirm it and yet you still try to deny something we ALL know and you know that we know.

I dont care how you define them as long as you define them so that you can no longer claim as you have done they mean something different to suit your current twaddle.

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

And again, lazy, spoon fed grub. You have become the forum version of a cuckoo. Your the chick that kicked out the real occupants and now demand feeding.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

I wont hold my breath. I have seen what happens when you make statements like this before

to which ones?

How sad. The ammount of times this list has been supplied to you and you ask this. It does not look good for how you are going to reply. Just remember that anything other than the definitions for your made up terms is equivalent to you admitting your epic loss on this tread.

1. Target food. You need to supply your final updated version
2. Unnatural food. Definition of the term. NOT 'unnatural' or/and 'food' but 'unnatural food'
3. Redundant adaption. Not 'redundant' or/and 'adaption'.
4. In the wild: Explain/define what you mean by In the wild not 'wild' or/and 'wildlife'
5. What you mean by MOST when trying to explain your lie about who has the mythical target food.
6. Excessive adaption
7. Unnatural processes

reply to post by colin42

Here is a great example of why you are considered to be totally dishonest and by more than just me. We have established that you have made up these terms.

Ok Colin, lets say for the moment that your correct. I want to see something that says that its dishonesty when someone makes up there own terms.

A search on any engine you choose will quickly confirm it and yet you still try to deny something we ALL know and you know that we know.

Every search of the terms comes up with examples of what it means except for target food. We already covered this.

I dont care how you define them as long as you define them so that you can no longer claim as you have done they mean something different to suit your current twaddle.

So as long as the definitions don't fit my needs. Well Colin if I made them up, don't you think they are going to fit ??

And again, lazy, spoon fed grub. You have become the forum version of a cuckoo. Your the chick that kicked out the real occupants and now demand feeding.

I have heard of such a bird but don't think its a cuckoo.

reply to post by colin42

1. Target food. You need to supply your final updated version

Ok target food is not getting updated, and I already told you this. So my last definitions are what I'm staying with.

2. Unnatural food. Definition of the term. NOT 'unnatural' or/and 'food' but 'unnatural food'

What I mean by this is the simple means in which it sounds. Food that is not natural.

3. Redundant adaption. Not 'redundant' or/and 'adaption'.

This one could be tricky and I totally understand why you want a definition. Redundant was used to explain a need that would have normally not been needed. Again this is provided we were actually living in our correct enviroment. Adaptation means just what it means. The two together means unessecary amounts of adaptatng. Of course this all stems from us not being in our enviroment.

4. In the wild: Explain/define what you mean by In the wild not 'wild' or/and 'wildlife'

In the wild could have some odd meanings that can throw people, but in this case I'm referring to the basic noun of the definition. In other words not civilization.

5. What you mean by MOST when trying to explain your lie about who has the mythical target food.

Well at first I was not considering the count of aquatic life, which actually does account for most of the life on this planet. This of course changed my target of the understanding at that time. I'm referring to the basic understanding of the word which means the majority of something.

6. Excessive adaption

Excessive adaptation occurs when there are more than one process to adapt. In most cases they are also unnatural, but that doesn't have to be the case. As an example we made shoes to overcome the harsh terrain when we walk. Mother nature fought back by giving us fungus to our feet, so we adapted yet again by coming up with socks to absorbe the sweat. Now it goes much deeper than this, we also get corns from shoes, blisters, and caluses, and for each one of these problems we adapted yet again by inventing prodects and medicans to over come the problem. As you can see the steps to overcome these problems are EXCESSIVE, to adapt.

7. Unnatural processes

This occurs when steps from NATURE are not the element thats at work. As an example you might assume that its simply anytime MAN has a process and that is pretty much true, but not the reason. It just so happens that man does not usually use natural processes. He can however and that is fine. As you stated back one time about introducing a heating element to cause a process, is not natural because the heat doesn't come from a natural source, its comes from a man made source and is additionally fueled by man made electricty. This isn't a question of if electricty is natural or not, its more a fact that in this case its not. Electricty can be natural like in the form of lightning, but the electricty that comes into our home does not occur automatically in nature, in the way we present it. You might argue that the essence of electricty is natural and to a point you are correct, but what comes into our homes is man generated, man controlled, man maintained, man delivered and man directed, and man utilized. It is therefore man made.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Ok target food is not getting updated, and I already told you this. So my last definitions are what I'm staying with.

Not good enough. I helped you out in making the definition to this which you agreed with then added more later. If you have decided not to provide the updated version then by default you have agreed to stop using it.

What I mean by this is the simple means in which it sounds. Food that is not natural.

Again unclear. A defintion is a description that gives a precise meaning or clarity to your term. Not natural food is the same as saying unnatural food. It is meaningless. Try again.

This one could be tricky and I totally understand why you want a definition. Redundant was used to explain a need that would have normally not been needed. Again this is provided we were actually living in our correct enviroment. Adaptation means just what it means. The two together means unessecary amounts of adaptatng. Of course this all stems from us not being in our enviroment.

Ok. Trouble is this shows your complete ignorance of the process described by evolution. Evolution is random change selected for by the enviroment. These come in three flavours:
1. Benificial change. Change that gives the organism an advantage that allows it a better chance to breed and pass on that advantage. This is then spread throughout the group. The smaller the group the quicker it is established. That is why isolation is cited as a factor in the process described by evolution.
2. Disadvantage. Change that means the chance to breed and pass on that change is reduced.
3. Neutral change. Has no effect but may become a disadvantage/advantage if the environment changes. The reason why some changes to the enviroment causes extinction or population explosions. Neutral change is like an investment. You can win or loose and it is the chance all life takes.

You should be able to see from the above there is no such thing as redundant adaption. All adaptions fit into the above 3 flavours. Nothing is redundant.

In the wild could have some odd meanings that can throw people, but in this case I'm referring to the basic noun of the definition. In other words not civilization.

Again this is a flimsy meaningless description. Civilistation is an abstract. It needs mans buildings and social structure to give it meaning. The Romans thought of any people who were not Roman as uncivilised. A person with bad manners can be labeled uncivilised. Civilisation is NOT a place just as IN THE WILD does not exist as a place.

I know you will not accept that but this is the plain truth. A wild animal (untrained, not domesticated, not controlled) can and does live in our most advanced cities. In the wild needs a context to have any meaning and when you use it you do not put it in context which makes it meaningless.

Well at first I was not considering the count of aquatic life, which actually does account for most of the life on this planet. This of course changed my target of the understanding at that time. I'm referring to the basic understanding of the word which means the majority of something.

Again nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt but that is what it is, nonsnese. Forget equatic life as it is tiny compared to microbial life, insect life or even plant life. Your use of most in the context you used it needs percentages/numbers which you refuse to give and so it has no meaning.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Excessive adaptation occurs when there are more than one process to adapt. In most cases they are also unnatural, but that doesn't have to be the case.

See my reply above in part one which explains why your use of excessive adaption and unnatural is nonsense

As an example we made shoes to overcome the harsh terrain when we walk. Mother nature fought back by giving us fungus to our feet, so we adapted yet again by coming up with socks to absorbe the sweat.

Mother nature did not fight back. We provided the various fungi with an ideal enviroment in which to thrive. It does not need mother nature to describe. Biology and evolution explains it fully with no need to invoke magic.

Shoes and socks are just as much a fashion statement as they are a utility. Many styles of shoes are worn without socks. You are making an assumption based on your opinion and not on any facts at all.

Now it goes much deeper than this, we also get corns from shoes, blisters, and caluses, and for each one of these problems we adapted yet again by inventing prodects and medicans to over come the problem.

We get corns, blisters and calluses from not wearing shoes as well. In fact Calluses are natures way of protecting our feet long before shoes were invented. BTW not wearing shoes is nowadays considered uncivilised.

As you can see the steps to overcome these problems are EXCESSIVE, to adapt.

Again my answer in part one above shows this last statement of your's to be meaningless. A point of view from ignorance.

This occurs when steps from NATURE are not the element thats at work.

Sorry but this is just a poorly constructed nonsense

As an example you might assume that its simply anytime MAN has a process and that is pretty much true, but not the reason.

More drivel. You need to rethink this as it makes no sense and certainly goes nowhere in making your point clear.

It just so happens that man does not usually use natural processes.

Crux of the matter. Man uses natural processes to produce everything we have. Your sentence above is so far removed from reality to make it just a poorly thought out fantasy. Even the computer you are using now was made using our knowledge of natural processes and works by using our understanding of natural processes. It is our our understanding of these natural processes that allows us to build the enviroments we live in.

He can however and that is fine. As you stated back one time about introducing a heating element to cause a process, is not natural because the heat doesn't come from a natural source, its comes from a man made source and is additionally fueled by man made electricty.

And as you was told then and I will repeat now heat is produced from friction. An electrical element is a resistor, it resists the flow of the current which causes friction. It is in no way unnatural. Fire shooting out of a finger would be unnatural, boiling water in an electric kettle is not. It may be considered an artificial process but it is not unnatural.

This isn't a question of if electricty is natural or not, its more a fact that in this case its not.

Another blindingly ignorant statement.

Electricty can be natural like in the form of lightning, but the electricty that comes into our home does not occur automatically in nature, in the way we present it.

No electricity is just that. A form of energy that we have learned to produce, harness and direct. The water in a cannal is no less harnessed and directed just as it is in a river.

You might argue that the essence of electricty is natural and to a point you are correct, but what comes into our homes is man generated, man controlled, man maintained, man delivered and man directed, and man utilized. It is therefore man made.

None of which makes it unnatural but does illustrate you misunderstanding of the words and language you use.

You have highlighted exactly what I knew you would. Not just the total ignorance of evolution but the world around you.

The words we use are man made but are no less natural than tracking the signs an animal leaves when we are hunting or looking at clouds and taking cover before it rains. Your ignorance of the words natural and unnatural is astounding and apears to be the foundation you have built your house of cards on. Until you can grasp that you will never understand anything that has been provided for you. I believe you dont want to.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Lets address this drivel

Ok Colin, lets say for the moment that your correct. I want to see something that says that its dishonesty when someone makes up there own terms.

First lets not beat around the bush, you made up those terms. No one and certainly not me stated that making up those terms is dishonest. Your dishonesty comes from avoiding making their meaning clear to everyone which allows you to alter them when your argument breaks down as it always does.

Every search of the terms comes up with examples of what it means except for target food. We already covered this.

An obvious lie otherwise you would have taken great pleasure in supplying them. The results may have shown definitions for individual words within that term but guess what ......... That is how search engines work.

So as long as the definitions don't fit my needs. Well Colin if I made them up, don't you think they are going to fit ??

Thanks for a great example of your dishonest approach and for confirming what I have maintained these many painful pages.

Your terms need to have meaning in this debate. They are not meant to 'fit your needs' or mine. They are meant to describe a process that can be challenged or accepted. By keeping their meaning to yourself you demonstrated excessive dishonesty. If you want I can supply the definition.

I have heard of such a bird but don't think its a cuckoo.

Yep, you have a very limited world view. Cuckoo Read the section Brood parasitism

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

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.

I absolutley dont understand it.

And herein lies the problem...you see, I know what "target" means, and I know what "food" means. I even have an idea of what I think somebody using the term "target food" would probably mean. BUT.

Everytime either I or somebody else atempts to discuss and refute target food, you say "you obviously dont understand what I mean by target food" (or words to that effect). And you're right....we dont. So!

Why not tell us what you mean when YOU use the phrase "target food". Help us to understand, maybe, if you do it right we'll all say "damn...ol' toothy has a point...now that he explains its it its obvious"

And the same goes for "redundant adaptation". I understand redundant, and I understand adaptation, but whenever I try to argue the point you say "you obviously dont understand......................" I think you probably get the point.

If we are not understanding the terms you supply in the context you are using them, that is your failiure to communicate! If you believe that that its not your problem if we cant get to grips with your message, then its obviously not important enough to continue discussing!

So, the down low is, either define a definate definition of the terms you use in a way that allows us to understand and discuss, or bug out.

We dont get it...nearly 500 pages and you still fail to explain your hypothesis, probably time to give us all up as hopeless cases, move on to another thread and let us all wallow in our ignorance.

Whaddaya say?

We no longer have any target food. I once heard that man can live alone on milk and bread. Bread is man made, Milk is processed. So either way you look at it, its a large process to live that way.

Milk doesnt have to be processed to be palatable.

You need to provide proof that we have ever had a target food before you can legitamatly make that statement. (you may want to define "target food" first)

The reasons are because this is not our home and not our food.

Whos food is it?

Who decides whos food belongs to who?

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.

Creationism proves itself wrong by not being able to explain the rise of alternate religions, such as judaism, sihkism, islam, buddihsm, taoism, mormonism, scientology, pastafarinism.

reply to post by colin42

Not good enough. I helped you out in making the definition to this which you agreed with then added more later. If you have decided not to provide the updated version then by default you have agreed to stop using it.

As I have agreed many times over, its not going to change, so ya.

Ok. Trouble is this shows your complete ignorance of the process described by evolution. Evolution is random change selected for by the enviroment. These come in three flavours:
1. Benificial change. Change that gives the organism an advantage that allows it a better chance to breed and pass on that advantage. This is then spread throughout the group. The smaller the group the quicker it is established.
2. Disadvantage. Change that means the chance to breed and pass on that change is reduced.
3. Neutral change. Has no effect but may become a disadvantage/advantage if the environment changes. The reason why some changes to the enviroment causes extinction or population explosions. Neutral change is like an investment. You can win or loose and it is the chance all life takes.

You should be able to see from the above there is no such thing as redundant adaption. All adaptions fit into the above 3 flavours. Nothing is redundant.

Oo. These processes I'm talking about have nothing to do with the events of creation or evolution. We didn't plan to evolve, we didn't plan to be created. We do however plan our daily functions and creations that we make, just like other life might as well. When we do things, there will be much more steps involved in completing that process as we are NOT IN OUR ELEMENT. As an example an ant might go through a dozen steps to get something to eat, where as we might go thorugh 3 dozen.

Again this is a flimsy meaningless description. Civilistation is an abstract. It needs mans buildings and social structure to give it meaning. The Romans thought of any people who were not Roman as uncivilised. A person with bad manners can be labeled uncivilised. Civilisation is NOT a place just as IN THE WILD does not exist as a place.

I know you will not accept that but this is the plain truth. A wild animal (untrained, not domesticated, not controlled) can and does live in our most advanced cities. In the wild needs a context to have any meaning and when you use it you do not put it in context which makes it meaningless.

Your just giving variations of the word, which might change its meaning. There is a distinct difference between civilization and the wilderness. I'm not sure if you fail to realize this possibly because you have gone to great lenghts to unite man with this planet, or because you believe so strongly in evolution that you don't want to accept there meaning. The bottom line is they are real words / terms and they have genuine meaning. There is a big difference in the wild and civilization. Civilization was a term that targets the description of man enhabiting an area, and usually kicking out most of the natural inhabitants. This is another fact you need to realize, we didn't choose to not blend in with mother nature, we simply don't and there is a very good reason for this, its once again because its not our element.

Again nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt but that is what it is, nonsnese. Forget equatic life as it is tiny compared to microbial life or even plant life. Your use of most in the context you used it needs percentages/numbers which you refuse to give and so it has no meaning.

Well it would be nice if I had those figures but I don't have that type of time put into this. It would probably take me years to get these definitions down to that point.. BTW there are far more microbial life in water than on land, at least thats my understanding of it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Not good enough. I helped you out in making the definition to this which you agreed with then added more later. If you have decided not to provide the updated version then by default you have agreed to stop using it.

As I have agreed many times over, its not going to change, so ya.

Ok. Trouble is this shows your complete ignorance of the process described by evolution. Evolution is random change selected for by the enviroment. These come in three flavours:
1. Benificial change. Change that gives the organism an advantage that allows it a better chance to breed and pass on that advantage. This is then spread throughout the group. The smaller the group the quicker it is established.
2. Disadvantage. Change that means the chance to breed and pass on that change is reduced.
3. Neutral change. Has no effect but may become a disadvantage/advantage if the environment changes. The reason why some changes to the enviroment causes extinction or population explosions. Neutral change is like an investment. You can win or loose and it is the chance all life takes.

You should be able to see from the above there is no such thing as redundant adaption. All adaptions fit into the above 3 flavours. Nothing is redundant.

Oo. These processes I'm talking about have nothing to do with the events of creation or evolution. We didn't plan to evolve, we didn't plan to be created. We do however plan our daily functions and creations that we make, just like other life might as well. When we do things, there will be much more steps involved in completing that process as we are NOT IN OUR ELEMENT. As an example an ant might go through a dozen steps to get something to eat, where as we might go thorugh 3 dozen.

Again this is a flimsy meaningless description. Civilistation is an abstract. It needs mans buildings and social structure to give it meaning. The Romans thought of any people who were not Roman as uncivilised. A person with bad manners can be labeled uncivilised. Civilisation is NOT a place just as IN THE WILD does not exist as a place.

I know you will not accept that but this is the plain truth. A wild animal (untrained, not domesticated, not controlled) can and does live in our most advanced cities. In the wild needs a context to have any meaning and when you use it you do not put it in context which makes it meaningless.

Your just giving variations of the word, which might change its meaning. There is a distinct difference between civilization and the wilderness. I'm not sure if you fail to realize this possibly because you have gone to great lenghts to unite man with this planet, or because you believe so strongly in evolution that you don't want to accept there meaning. The bottom line is they are real words / terms and they have genuine meaning. There is a big difference in the wild and civilization. Civilization was a term that targets the description of man enhabiting an area, and usually kicking out most of the natural inhabitants. This is another fact you need to realize, we didn't choose to not blend in with mother nature, we simply don't and there is a very good reason for this, its once again because its not our element.

Again nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt but that is what it is, nonsnese. Forget equatic life as it is tiny compared to microbial life or even plant life. Your use of most in the context you used it needs percentages/numbers which you refuse to give and so it has no meaning.

Well it would be nice if I had those figures but I don't have that type of time put into this. It would probably take me years to get these definitions down to that point.. BTW there are far more microbial life in water than on land, at least thats my understanding of it.

So you have decided to completely skate over every point made without discussion as I was sure you would. You always do when confronted with answers you cannot contest.

In which case your definitions were not fit for purpose. Most defined nothing. Please supply those definitions, including target food.

reply to post by colin42

Excessive adaptation occurs when there are more than one process to adapt. In most cases they are also unnatural, but that doesn't have to be the case.

See my reply above in part one which explains why your use of excessive adaption and unnatural is nonsense

Well I understand you think its nonsense but your only saying that, can you explain what part or why you think its nonsense.

Mother nature did not fight back. We provided the various fungi with an ideal enviroment in which to thrive. It does not need mother nature to describe. Biology and evolution explains it fully with no need to invoke magic.

There is no magic in this. Mother nature will continue to force us off this planet as long as we are here. We are not welcome here and we are not supppose to be here.

Shoes and socks are just as much a fashion statement as they are a utility. Many styles of shoes are worn without socks. You are making an assumption based on your opinion and not on any facts at all.

True but the fact is they were and still remain to serve a utility purpose and fashion is a second attribute. Your trying to tell me that I wear my shoes to look good, not because I'm worried about the dangerious terrain. People dont wear shoes to just look good, they wear them because they have to. Now they might pick out a specific color or design to fit there fashion but they are STILL SHOES first.

We get corns, blisters and calluses from not wearing shoes as well. In fact Calluses are natures way of protecting our feet long before shoes were invented. BTW not wearing shoes is nowadays considered uncivilised.

Agreed and your missing the point. We would have never made shoes if they didn't serve a purpose. Mother is the necessity of invention. Granted we might still have some damage from not wearing them, and can you guess why that might be? Because its not OUR TERRAIN. In our natural enviroment we would not be dealing with such things. Maybe your will understand better from this perspective. Lets pretend for the moment that a creator did in fact make all this life and the planets. If a creator was smart enough to make humans, don't you think he would also be smart enough to make proper food for us too? It's just like when we were smart enough to make the car, we had to also be smart enough to make gas to run the car. I don't believe in evolution, its not possible, and I don't believe in creation either because they are both missing a starting point. There is something much bigger out there that our feeble minds couldn't even begin to understand.

Crux of the matter. Man uses natural processes to produce everything we have. Your sentence above is so far removed from reality to make it just a poorly thought out fantasy. Even the computer you are using now was made using our knowledge of natural processes and works by using our understanding of natural processes. It is our our understanding of these natural processes that allows us to build the enviroments we live in.

The fact of the matter is that man uses a lot of processes that would not work if you took man out of the picture, in other words they are not natural. In order for a process to be natural, you would have to see it occuring without the help of man, in the wild. Computers are not made in nature, and can't be made in nature. I think your confusing some of the manufacturing processes with ideas of them being natural, and they aren't. CPU chips are not born in the wild, RAM cards to not spring up out of the ground and monitors do not grow on trees.

And as you was told then and I will repeat now heat is produced from friction. An electrical element is a resistor, it resists the flow of the current which causes friction. It is in no way unnatural. Fire shooting out of a finger would be unnatural, boiling water in an electric kettle is not. It may be considered an artificial process but it is not unnatural.

If its artificial, than its not natural. Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term. An example, Ben and Jerrys ice cream was just busted a few years ago because they were indicating on there lables that they are using all natural ingredients. Only problem was that one of the ingredients was corn sryup. Now you and I both know that corn sryup is made from natural ingredients but the fact of the matter is that corn sryup as a sweetner is not naturally achieved on its own in the wild. It has to be greatly processed. So they were busted and had to remove the phrase all natural.

Your loosness with the word fits in the same catagory. You need to realize that you can't just use the word in any example like you have been doing simply because something contains some parts that are natural or because there is the essence of natural on it.

When the word natural is used it is very clear that no man made processes that alter it are present.

No electricity is just that. A form of energy that we have learned to produce, harness and direct. The water in a cannal is no less harnessed and directed just as it is in a river.

At which point that river would also no longer be natural.

None of which makes it unnatural but does illustrate you misunderstanding of the words and language you use.

Of course it does, without mans intervention that electricty would not be made, transported, controlled or utilized.

You have highlighted exactly what I knew you would. Not just the total ignorance of evolution but the world around you.

Disbelieve all you want but the fact is Colin that I have provided definitinons to you of these and all you do is question them. Now I didn't write them so its not me being the ignorant one here.

The words we use are man made but are no less natural than tracking the signs an animal leaves when we are hunting or looking at clouds and taking cover before it rains. Your ignorance of the words natural and unnatural is astounding and apears to be the foundation you have built your house of cards on. Until you can grasp that you will never understand anything that has been provided for you. I believe you dont want to.

I think a good start for you is to start reading food lables, and notice how many of them never indicate to use all natural ingredients. The fact is that its very hard to produce such things that suit mans needs.

Krimples are small, furry septopods (seven limbs) who dwell in the marsh forests of Lyman.

A peaceful species that survives by gathering and eating Groyne roots and Zukker nuts. These are the only two items that the Krimples eat, although there are many other items in the forests of Lyman that could sustain the Krimples.

On the 15th anniversary of Glog, a Krimple youngling ate a Groyne root and was violently sick, for the Groyne bushes had absorbed a toxin from the soil which became present in the roots.

More of the Krimples became sick as the bush that had evolved to tolerate and presence the toxin was not eaten and grew large and spread many seeds.

The Krimples turned to the Zukker nuts, but there were many Krimples and few Zukker trees.

One day, while foraging in the marsh forests, a pleasant aroma assailed the olfactory sense organs on the elbows of an elder krimple. A hitherto unknown fruit had ripened and the sweet smell was as ambrosia to the Krimple.

The elder Krimple first sniffed, and then licked the fruit and was rewarded by a pleasant sensation on its taste limb. (usually the third limb counting anti-clockwise from the beak appendage)

The reflex action of the taste limb, on sensing that that fruit was good flicked the fruit into the Krimples absorption pouch and reached for another.

Soon, all of the Krimples were feasting on the Zagger fruits (named after the Krimple who first discovered them) and Zukker nuts, the only two items Krimples ate.

One day, a Krimple youngling ate a Zukker nutand was violently sick, for the Zukker trees had absorbed a toxin from the soil which became present in the nuts.

More of the Krimples became sick as the tree that had evolved to tolerate and presence the toxin was not eaten and grew large and spread many seeds.

The Krimples turned to the Zagger fruits, but there were many Krimples and few Zagger trees.

One day, while foraging in the marsh forests, a pleasant aroma asailed the olfactory sense organs on the face of an elder krimple. A hitherto unknown berry had ripened and the sweet smell was as ambrosia to the Krimple.

The elder Krimple first sniffed, and then licked the fruit and was rewarded by a pleasant sensation on its tongue. (Usually located inside the beak appendage)

The reflex action of the tounge, on sensing that that fruit was good flicked the fruit into the beak appendage and the Krimple used its limbs to select another.

Soon, all of the Krimples were feasting on the Shang berries (named after the Krimple who first discovered them) and Zagger fruits.

One day, a Krimple youngling reached for a Shang berry and received cuts and scratches, for a Shang berry bush had mutated and surrounded its berries with sharp thorns……….


I could go on, but this really could last for ever (indeed, in the real world it already has….ITS CALLED EVOLUTION>>>ITS REAL>>>GET OVER IT

reply to post by colin42

First lets not beat around the bush, you made up those terms. No one and certainly not me stated that making up those terms is dishonest. Your dishonesty comes from avoiding making their meaning clear to everyone which allows you to alter them when your argument breaks down as it always does.

No you made it clear that anytime someone makes up there own terms, they are automatically dishonest.

An obvious lie otherwise you would have taken great pleasure in supplying them. The results may have shown definitions for individual words within that term but guess what ......... That is how search engines work.

I already proved you wrong on this Colin, the definition for the word term...

term/tərm/Noun: A word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, esp. in a particular kind of language or branch of study.

So as you can see, it can be a single word or a phrase. Again you were wrong.

Thanks for a great example of your dishonest approach and for confirming what I have maintained these many painful pages.

Your not making any sense.

Your terms need to have meaning in this debate. They are not meant to 'fit your needs' or mine. They are meant to describe a process that can be challenged or accepted. By keeping their meaning to yourself you demonstrated excessive dishonesty. If you want I can supply the definition.

Well I think whats going on, is these definitions stonewall the idea of evolution, and your having a problem accepting them from that aspect. The funny part is that they were not written with that in mind, thats just how it is. I told you evolution is not real, and its fake as hell and you ignored me. Now your seeing it from an angle that can't be disputed and you don't like that. To bad.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well I understand you think its nonsense but your only saying that, can you explain what part or why you think its nonsense.

What a dishonest person you are. I gave a full explanation in part one refered to in my reply to this. You know the post above that you skipped over giving some random nonsense that was not related to my answer.

There is no magic in this. Mother nature will continue to force us off this planet as long as we are here. We are not welcome here and we are not supppose to be here.

Mother nature is forcing us off this planet by giving us athletes foot your a true farce. Of course you have no evidence to back that up.

True but the fact is they were and still remain to serve a utility purpose and fashion is a second attribute. Your trying to tell me that I wear my shoes to look good, not because I'm worried about the dangerious terrain.

Yes you wear shoes to look good. Tell me would you wear womens shoes, actually I would guess you would. Most other men would go barefoot rather than wear womens shoes.

Agreed and your missing the point. We would have never made shoes if they didn't serve a purpose.

Missing a point? Again you try to deflect from the topic at hand. Where are those definitions?

Mother is the necessity of invention.

Is she? Very Freudian.

Granted we might still have some damage from not wearing them, and can you guess why that might be? Because its not OUR TERRAIN. In our natural enviroment we would not be dealing with such things. Maybe your will understand better from this perspective.

More nonsense babblings.

Lets pretend for the moment that a creator did in fact make all this life and the planets.

Absolutely nothing to do with evolution. How many times do you need telling.

If a creator was smart enough to make humans, don't you think he would also be smart enough to make proper food for us too?

There is, in abundance. What followed from you is just more rantings of a sick and damaged mind. Get help.

The fact of the matter is that man uses a lot of processes that would not work if you took man out of the picture, in other words they are not natural. In order for a process to be natural, you would have to see it occuring without the help of man, in the wild.

Ants use a lot of processes that would not work if you took ants out of the picture. Again you saying the processes are not natural does not mean it is true. Supply the evidence. Give a better argument than you think it true so it is.

Computers are not made in nature, and can't be made in nature.

Is that so? what a load of ignorant raving. What is a brain if it is not a computer . Brains are made in nature. I does appear some like you choose not to use them.

Break in this reply as tooth has shown his real intention

reply to post by itsthetooth

If its artificial, than its not natural. Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term. An example, Ben and Jerrys ice cream was just busted a few years ago because they were indicating on there lables that they are using all natural ingredients. Only problem was that one of the ingredients was corn sryup. Now you and I both know that corn sryup is made from natural ingredients but the fact of the matter is that corn sryup as a sweetner is not naturally achieved on its own in the wild. It has to be greatly processed. So they were busted and had to remove the phrase all natural.

You made a BIG mistake here.

Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term.

So you show here you have understood the importance of giving the correct use of and the clarity of meaning all along but you have acted as if you could not understand.

YOU ARE A FAKE. YOU ARE A TROLL

Hung by you own words. You have shown above that you, far from not being able to understand what I and others have been asking over many pages you knew only to well. You needed to pretend to maintain the tools of your deception and dishonesty. Shameful.

BTW it is spelt Whimsical

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

You see why I have followed this path now Happy. The whole point of demanding the definitions was to expose tooths dishonesty.

He has trolled this thread for too many pages to be allowed to walk away without being identified as such.

That job is now done

reply to post by colin42

What a dishonest person you are. I gave a full explanation in part one refered to in my reply to this. You know the post above that you skipped over giving some random nonsense that was not related to my answer

How is you not giving an explanation come out to mean that I'm being dishonest?

Mother nature is forcing us off this planet by giving us athletes foot your a true farce. Of course you have no evidence to back that up.

No, now look at how dishonest your being after I just explained this. We are forced off this planet in a multituide of ways, but in reference to just our feet, fungus, caluses, corns, warts and so on

Yes you wear shoes to look good. Tell me would you wear womens shoes, actually I would guess you would. Most other men would go barefoot rather than wear womens shoes.

Your being an ignoramious. Would you walk out in the snow or ice without shoes? And if it was a dire emergency and all you had were womens shoes or suffer the chance of getting frost bite or wear wormens shoes, which would you choose? Well you would probably choose stumps and gang green.

Missing a point? Again you try to deflect from the topic at hand. Where are those definitions?

I just gave you the definitions.

There is, in abundance. What followed from you is just more rantings of a sick and damaged mind. Get help.

Thats not true, even by your own lack of input, there is no target food for humans. Now you may sit back and claim that target food doesn't exist but its just a cop out.

Ants use a lot of processes that would not work if you took ants out of the picture.

True but the question becomes is there any other place that these processes occurs without ants.

Again you saying the processes are not natural does not mean it is true. Supply the evidence. Give a better argument than you think it true so it is.

Oh I don't go that deep into it, I just go by the dictionary meanings.

Is that so? what a load of ignorant raving. What is a brain if it is not a computer . Brains are made in nature. I does appear some like you choose not to use them.

Break in this reply as tooth has shown his real intention

I'm convinced by this statement that you are doing nothing more than just toying with me. Computer processors are not biological brains.