Can you prove evolution wrong?*, page 376

Pages: << 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 3-5-2012 @ 08:16 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by colin42

But I dont understand? You say there are strict rules for the use of natural. You go as far as to claim use of natural outside these rules is forbidden yet cannot explain to me why UNNATURAL is not governed by the same strict rules.

Like I said its because things are considered to be unnatural unless stated otherwise. It's obviously because we have way more unnatural things.

Or why these rules only apply to natural and not adaption, or evolution or even food? Do I need to campaign for equal rights for all words?

Please explain this to me and stop me from making a fool of myself.

Your going to have to speak to a language pathologist to get to the bottom of those. I don't know why they have eneded up the way they did, only that they did.

reply posted on 3-5-2012 @ 08:26 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by colin42

Suppose to be cold rain.

This may be in common use where you live. Where I am we have rain, sleet or snow. If I was interested in your answer I would ask you to explain cold rain (added: You can have cold rain but not hot water

Neither exist in a dictionary was my point, but you know as well as I do that they do exist in real life.

Your point is not a valid point. You can use words pretty much how you like in common usage and within groups that understand the slang.

You are making up terms to explain things within science. They need to be understood and acurate. I should not have to explain this to somone who claims to be a science major.

To show how childish your babble appears. A person with fair hair is often decribed as a NATURAL BLONDE. A person who dyes their hair blonde is not known as an UNNATURAL BLONDE. Why because it is nonsense exactly as your term UNNATURAL FOOD. It is the babbling of a child mind.

Thats because your not using it in proper context. The word unnatural is only going to be used when its assumed otherwise. It's the same reason we are strict about using the term natural ingerdients. It's assumed that unnatural ingerdients are used therefore no reason to include it. Which is the same reason whey the FDA is carful about how the term natural ingredients is used.

You can break down my terms in the exact same way.

For the reasons given above, no I cannot break down the terms you made up. You are using them in a technical/science context. YOU need to describe their meaning or stop using them.

So thats why you keep asking for my definitions, your hoping that I will simply stop using them. To bad they were all thought of long before I ever joined ATS.

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

And you have already been proven wrong on this by the definition that I copied and pasted about wild, and in the was used to describe it as a noun.

Exactly my point. You used it to describe a ratio yet refused to put a number to it. Why? Your happy to make up rediculous numbers for other things why not this?

I haven't done enough research to put an actuall number to it.

reply posted on 3-5-2012 @ 08:34 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by idmonster

just when i thought you had displayed the height of you ignorance you come out with this tripe. Organic does not refer to vegetation. "Organic" WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF FOOD PRODUCTION refers to the methods used in producing that food and can relate to all food products, animal and vegetable.

No, in the case of vegitation it refers to the processes or the lack of, thus keeping it more natural.

BTW - It is not a fact that food not labled as natural is considered to be un-natural. The lableing of foods such as this is, in part a marketing ploy to charge people more for the food they buy. Normaly when a food is labled as "natural", its in in the context of " all natural ingredients" meaning that no artificial ingredients have been included. So, no preservatives, no added vitamins, no artificial colourings and so on. This does not automaticaly mean that if you buy a banana that isnt labled as natural, it will contain all of the above.

Agreed but only those that are limited to handeling and processes will be organic.

Nope, your actualy wrong. The countries that do clearly define what can, and cannot be labled "natural" do not insist that processing food make it unable to be labled so. Things like adding vitamins and artificial colourings are what prevent them having the lable. Pastuerisation does not.

This is why I specifically used vegatation as an example, It does start out as being natural and organic you know.

I didnt fail to consider anything. The artical was quite clear that B&J were labling their whole product as "natural", which under the (rather loose) FDA guidlines was not allowed due to the inclusion of a single ingredient which could not be labled as "natural".

No reference was made to any of the processes the rest of the ingredients were subjest to. I metioned the pasturisation of the milk, but there is also a lot of refinement of the sugar that goes into icecream.

Niether of these highly processed food items would have resulted in the product from being disallowed to hold the lable "natural".

I dunno the details as I haven't researched it, but can say that if the ice cream was organic they probably had no problem allowing it as natural.
The other problem is that the ingredients list may have been only refelcting what was added to the ice cream, and not its processes.

Every website I have looked at claims that milk is natural / I don't agree. At least that its not natural that we consume it.

reply posted on 3-5-2012 @ 08:51 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by idmonster

Your biggest problem in understanding evolution is superbly shown within the above comment.

So your admitting that you want to claim any changes found right off the bat as being evolution no questions asked.

You see evolution is just a word for "change within species". It doesnt matter whether you agree with the mechanisms, or if you have your own ideas about how those changes occur, it is still evolution.

I understand that, but the real question is does change mean evolution?

Some of us are happy with the current scientific explanations to explain evolution, such as natural or sexual selection while others cite genetic tampering by ET's.

Sadley the last one seems the most plausible.

Putting the mechanism for evolution to one side for a second, it still doesnt alter the FACT that evolution occurs. Even if you were correct and intervention were proven, the question of evolution would still arrise.

Keep in mind we know nothing about this mechanisim. We have never seen it nor do we know the driving force behind it.

How did the interventionist become to be? How to explain the diversity from wherever it is you think we came from? (these are rhetorical questionmarks)

Well the bible is an excellent point of reference, for starters.

Which ever way you look at it, species change and that is evolution. Changes alone DO prove evolution.

I went to the store today to buy something, and changed my mind, is that evolution. It was change.

The other problem (!!) you have is with speciation, but first I feel the need to address the Pilkingtonesque statement you make above.

Species do not decide they dont want to breed, and if even if they were able to make this choice, this would not have them defined as seperate species. You are not a different species to every woman you meet just because they dont want to breed with you. In fact, even if they were physicaly unable to breed due to physiological differences, this still would not make them seperate species. What defines them as seperate species is the inability to breed gameticaly. i.e. the sperm (tadpoles) and egg could not fuse and create an embryo. (all of this has been covered previously)

Now see thats not what I get from all this, I see that they aren't able to produce offspring, not that it proves speciation at all.

How is it that kodiac bears are now mating with polar bears. Two complete different species producing offspring. I think your wrong. And if this is shadowed delusions of science, they really have some work ahead of them.

Species is a concept defined by man to explain the above. In reality we are all the same, every single living organism on the planet. We are merely replication factories for DNA.

That would be the 6 million dollar statement, right there. Species is a concept defined by man. Changes are also a concept designed by man with no scientific basis for structure.

The species of DAN is a metaphore for DNA. All DNA on the planet is the same, the only thing that prevents your DNA from mixing with plant DAN is the way it is laid out. (although I do believe there might be many other things that prevent your DNA from mixing with another humans -- just kiddin

The only problem is WHO laid it out.

reply posted on 3-5-2012 @ 09:59 PM by Confusion42

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.

I want to summize the feelings of 90%+ of the people that read this thread.

It is YOU, tooth, who is psycotic.

And you still never answered me this....

What exactly is your belief?

You've already stated that you think "God is murderous..."

So, Tooth, what is your story?

What do you believe in?

Note the question is what do YOU BELIEVE IN .... so only talk about thinks you BELIEVE in........ and do not talk about things that you do not believe in.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 06:24 AM by colin42

reply to post by itsthetooth

So you are not going to answer why the strict rules that govern the use of NATURAL do not seemingly apply to UNNATURAL. I know why and your answer to try to avoid it is obvious.
Your answer

I think it depends on what it refers to.

If they were ever to come out with unnatural potatoes, it would surly mean they were not natural.

I take it thats another no then.

Oh great big silly you. You know I allready gave you those definitions, they would be the ones you argued don't make any sense. How could they make no sense unless I gave you the definitions.

Again you gave the definitions of the words your terms contained and not the meaning of those terms. As I wrote I already undestand the words, not your terms. But again in a long list of your so called replies I take it again that it is yet another refusal.

Edit BTW I corrected you once in a nice hint type way but its VEGETATION not VEGITATION or VEGATATION. At least learn that.

edit on 4-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 06:41 AM by colin42

reply to post by itsthetooth

But I dont understand? You say there are strict rules for the use of natural. You go as far as to claim use of natural outside these rules is forbidden yet cannot explain to me why UNNATURAL is not governed by the same strict rules.
Your answer

Like I said its because things are considered to be unnatural unless stated otherwise. It's obviously because we have way more unnatural things.

And as you have had explained to you that is hogwash. Please answer the question I posed or do I take it as yet another refusal, thats three in a row just on this subject.

My question to you:
Or why these rules only apply to natural and not adaption, or evolution or even food? Do I need to campaign for equal rights for all words?

Please explain this to me and stop me from making a fool of myself.
Your answer

Your going to have to speak to a language pathologist to get to the bottom of those. I don't know why they have eneded up the way they did, only that they did.

First. Language Pathologist. Will you ever be found guilty of using correct words/terms/names or even english? I doubt it very much. What the hell has a language pathologist to do with why only natural has strict rules and forbidden uses?

I am shocked you never suggested a language inquisitor.

Anyhow i digress. So thats another no then. The fourth refusal in a row and yet you demand answers to your silly and frankly low level of intelligence lead questions and claim victory when people eventually cant be bothered.

I will take my cue from you and claim victory. You have shown by your refusal to answer that you dont have a clue what you are on about and worse try to bluff your way out. (thats the same as lying by the way)

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 07:06 AM by colin42

reply to post by itsthetooth

Neither exist in a dictionary was my point, but you know as well as I do that they do exist in real life.

I know what hot water is, never heard of cold rain. Please define cold rain

Thats because your not using it in proper context. The word unnatural is only going to be used when its assumed otherwise.

Where did you learn english? You have no idea of context. What does the rest of your sentence even mean?

It's the same reason we are strict about using the term natural ingerdients. It's assumed that unnatural ingerdients are used therefore no reason to include it.

This is a common theme through all your posts. Hogwash. Within science/medicine/construction/aeronaughtics/ and any other technical group you can think off every word used must be understood by all in that group and that is only achieved by giving a clear definiton in the context in which it is used.

If something is not regarded as natural it is in no way assumed to be unnatural. A wooden leg is not a natural limb it is an artificial leg, not an unnatural leg. I really cannot believe the low level of education you are proud to display.

Which is the same reason whey the FDA is carful about how the term natural ingredients is used.

Again that has been clearly explained and again you have totally ignored it. Your low level of education appears to be one of choice

So thats why you keep asking for my definitions, your hoping that I will simply stop using them. To bad they were all thought of long before I ever joined ATS.

No I ask for those definitions so that you cannot keep changing them and using them as a get out of jail card. The fact that you have used them for any length of time just exposes the fact that you have learned absolutely nothing. Your refusal to supply them highlights your dishonesty

And you have already been proven wrong on this by the definition that I copied and pasted about wild, and in the was used to describe it as a noun.

Just because you say I have been proven wrong does not mean you are correct or that I am wrong. Where is your logical response to what I wrote?

I haven't done enough research to put an actuall number to it.

You never did any research into evolution when you commented about how it would take trillions of years (3 trillion rings a bell) for man to evolve. Why would your best guess not be valid for your use of most in the context you used it, you have the bible for reference after all? This answer from you is just another refusal to answer

edit on 4-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 10:18 AM by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

So in other words, nothing would prove it for you. At least you admit your biasness finally.

Also you should know that SCIENTIFIC sources are best for describing SCIENCE, while creationist sources are best for describing CREATIONISM (faith). Asking for a neutral source on something is laughable. Obviously a scientist that has studied the stuff would be a more credible person to speak to about the subject. Don't get me wrong creationist sites are full of lies, but that's what it takes to justify faith I suppose. I'd love for you to point out a single lie perpetrated by a scientific study. I already know you won't so I guess it's moot though.
Just like you can't prove anything in the realm of creation to be a lie either.

No but we can prove that many creationist sites have lies on them, which is my main point. You won't find the same in reference to science experiments.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 11:38 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

So, you don't believe it therefore it's wrong?

In logical parlance, we call that "wishful thinking" and an argument from ignorance.

No, its that nothing has given me reason to believe its accurate, doing so is what I would call wishfull thinking.

No, you said:

I think its going to be pretty hard to prove because I have doubts about it being identified to begin with.

Read it carefully. You said it's going to be hard to prove BECAUSE YOU HAVE DOUBTS.

In other words, you don't believe it, therefore it's not true.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 12:37 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by Confusion42

I want to summize the feelings of 90%+ of the people that read this thread.

It is YOU, tooth, who is psycotic.

Well that would make sense seeing how about 90% of the people on here like evolution. Besides how can you call me psycotic when the main person I'm arguing with claims to not even know the meaning of the word Most.

And you still never answered me this....

What exactly is your belief?

You've already stated that you think "God is murderous..."

So, Tooth, what is your story?

What do you believe in?

Note the question is what do YOU BELIEVE IN .... so only talk about thinks you BELIEVE in........ and do not talk about things that you do not believe in.

I think its more than obvious that we were planet here against our will, by aliens. Whats really odd is thats what aliens do, they abduct people.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 12:43 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by colin42

So you are not going to answer why the strict rules that govern the use of NATURAL do not seemingly apply to UNNATURAL. I know why and your answer to try to avoid it is obvious.
Your answer

I think it depends on what it refers to.

If they were ever to come out with unnatural potatoes, it would surly mean they were not natural.

I take it thats another no then.

I see, so your questions are not based on the desire to learn something, but to try to see if I know the answers. So is this suppose to be a battle to questions of sorts?

Again you gave the definitions of the words your terms contained and not the meaning of those terms. As I wrote I already undestand the words, not your terms. But again in a long list of your so called replies I take it again that it is yet another refusal.

Edit BTW I corrected you once in a nice hint type way but its VEGETATION not VEGITATION or VEGATATION. At least learn that.

Well thank you for that and I'll return the favor but telling you that spelling gramma is incorrect and should be grammar. I asked over and over for a definition but never got one and also tried to give hints that my granmma had nothing to do with this.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 12:51 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by colin42

But I dont understand? You say there are strict rules for the use of natural. You go as far as to claim use of natural outside these rules is forbidden yet cannot explain to me why UNNATURAL is not governed by the same strict rules.
Your answer

Like I said its because things are considered to be unnatural unless stated otherwise. It's obviously because we have way more unnatural things.

And as you have had explained to you that is hogwash.

And this is where the problem is, I don't want your opinion, I want facts.

Please answer the question I posed or do I take it as yet another refusal, thats three in a row just on this subject.

I'm still waiting for something with a question mark, they look like rhetorical questions at this point.

My question to you:
Or why these rules only apply to natural and not adaption, or evolution or even food? Do I need to campaign for equal rights for all words?

No one ever said they only apply to those words, I'm sure there are others but there you go again assuming. Why don't you just assume I'm correct since your so good at assuming.

First. Language Pathologist. Will you ever be found guilty of using correct words/terms/names or even english? I doubt it very much. What the hell has a language pathologist to do with why only natural has strict rules and forbidden uses?

Not a damn thing, I was testing you.

I am shocked you never suggested a language inquisitor.

Anyhow i digress. So thats another no then. The fourth refusal in a row and yet you demand answers to your silly and frankly low level of intelligence lead questions and claim victory when people eventually cant be bothered.

I will take my cue from you and claim victory. You have shown by your refusal to answer that you dont have a clue what you are on about and worse try to bluff your way out. (thats the same as lying by the way)

I'm not bluffing about anything.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:05 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by colin42

Neither exist in a dictionary was my point, but you know as well as I do that they do exist in real life.

I know what hot water is, never heard of cold rain. Please define cold rain

Will someone please help Colin out, he seems to be stumped on "Cold rain." Honestly I would have thought he would have had enough smarts to figure it out, I guess I was wrong.

Thats because your not using it in proper context. The word unnatural is only going to be used when its assumed otherwise.

Where did you learn english? You have no idea of context. What does the rest of your sentence even mean?

Your so lost you don't even know how to use words.

This is a common theme through all your posts. Hogwash. Within science/medicine/construction/aeronaughtics/ and any other technical group you can think off every word used must be understood by all in that group and that is only achieved by giving a clear definiton in the context in which it is used.

If something is not regarded as natural it is in no way assumed to be unnatural. A wooden leg is not a natural limb it is an artificial leg, not an unnatural leg. I really cannot believe the low level of education you are proud to display.

Depends on what angle your looking at. From the angle of it taking place of a leg, ya your correct and BTW its not an artificial leg its called a prosthetic leg. Now if your looking at it from the trees angle, it could be natural if its all wood.

Which is the same reason whey the FDA is carful about how the term natural ingredients is used.

Again that has been clearly explained and again you have totally ignored it. Your low level of education appears to be one of choice

Maybe my retention is low when dealing with people that believe in things like evolution.

So thats why you keep asking for my definitions, your hoping that I will simply stop using them. To bad they were all thought of long before I ever joined ATS.

No I ask for those definitions so that you cannot keep changing them and using them as a get out of jail card. The fact that you have used them for any length of time just exposes the fact that you have learned absolutely nothing. Your refusal to supply them highlights your dishonesty

I have supplied them, I don't know what else to tell you but to go back and read them again.

And you have already been proven wrong on this by the definition that I copied and pasted about wild, and in the was used to describe it as a noun.

Just because you say I have been proven wrong does not mean you are correct or that I am wrong. Where is your logical response to what I wrote?

True but in this case you were wrong and it was explained to you and you ignored it.

I haven't done enough research to put an actuall number to it.

You never did any research into evolution when you commented about how it would take trillions of years (3 trillion rings a bell) for man to evolve. Why would your best guess not be valid for your use of most in the context you used it, you have the bible for reference after all? This answer from you is just another refusal to answer

Ya it does seem odd, but whats funny is how another person came on this thread making the same claim that they also thought it would take more years than we have.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:09 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by Barcs

No but we can prove that many creationist sites have lies on them, which is my main point. You won't find the same in reference to science experiments.

That doesn't mean anything, like I allready pointed out there have been plenty of evolutionists that have been busted for false claims.

I also never claimed that the bible is understood 100% accurately either.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:13 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by HappyBunny

Read it carefully. You said it's going to be hard to prove BECAUSE YOU HAVE DOUBTS.

In other words, you don't believe it, therefore it's not true.

In other words, nothing has been proven to me, so I have no reason to believe in it.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:28 PM by colin42

reply to post by itsthetooth

So you are not going to answer why the strict rules that govern the use of NATURAL do not seemingly apply to UNNATURAL. I know why and your answer to try to avoid it is obvious.
Your answer

I see, so your questions are not based on the desire to learn something, but to try to see if I know the answers. So is this suppose to be a battle to questions of sorts?

Ah I see. Thats a definite no you cannot and will not answer the question then. Not bad . you have maintained your 100% record

BTW your dammed right I wont learn anything from you. The best thing I can achieve is to stop your little trick of hiding behind your made up terms

Well thank you for that and I'll return the favor but telling you that spelling gramma is incorrect and should be grammar. I asked over and over for a definition but never got one and also tried to give hints that my granmma had nothing to do with this.

Yep, but you did not comment about the link I gave? I only typed it wrong once whereas you have had at least 3 stabs at VEGETATION and got it wrong every time. How sad, you couldnt even make a lucky guess

back on topic.

Again you gave the definitions of the words your terms contained and not the meaning of those terms. As I wrote I already undestand the words, not your terms. But again in a long list of your so called replies I take it again that it is yet another refusal.

You really dont want to answer this question do you. Shows your dishonest approach perfectly.

edit on 4-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:30 PM by idmonster

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

And this is where the problem is, I don't want your opinion, I want facts.

No you dont, you want confirmation of what you already believe.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:44 PM by colin42

reply to post by itsthetooth

And this is where the problem is, I don't want your opinion, I want facts.

you really are funny

you dont even know what a fact is

I'm still waiting for something with a question mark, they look like rhetorical questions at this point.

Does not need a question mark but of course you dont even understand that.

No one ever said they only apply to those words, I'm sure there are others but there you go again assuming. Why don't you just assume I'm correct since your so good at assuming.

Neither did I

I asked why these rules that you have not linked too only apply to NATURAL and NOT adaption, or evolution or even food? Your reading skills mirror your lack of education as if they were a matched pair

As for assuming, you are the one saying anything not stated as natural is assumed 'unnatural'

Not a damn thing, I was testing you.

What a fake you are

Another boob by you, pointed out by me and again you reply with a lie. You wonder why I always call you dishonest? I give you the reply you just made

I'm not bluffing about anything.

Fair enough if you prefer being called a liar. Your lying.

reply posted on 4-5-2012 @ 01:50 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

No but we can prove that many creationist sites have lies on them, which is my main point. You won't find the same in reference to science experiments.

That doesn't mean anything, like I allready pointed out there have been plenty of evolutionists that have been busted for false claims.

I also never claimed that the bible is understood 100% accurately either.

So the fact that creationists constantly lie and criticize science with no knowledge or understanding of it, means nothing. Okay then. Please give me one example of a biologist lying about science experiments in regards to modern evolutionary synthesis. Which part of it is a lie? And don't say, "well i haven't seen proof". You haven't seen proof of anything, ever, and never will, because you'll instantly dismiss any evidence that goes against your pre determined conclusion. Lies are INTENTIONAL. Please give me some examples of the lies.

edit on 4-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)