It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 377
31
<< 374  375  376    378  379  380 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
It looks to me as if its you that wants help. Dont tell me this is another term you cannot define. You appear to not have the smarts to provide anything but lame made up terms (undefined) and ask low education lead questions. Dont call for help. Dial a teacher, start from first grade. You may struggle at first though.


Your so lost you don't even know how to use words.
Your the only one here fluent in gibberish. Translate your words please


Thats because your not using it in proper context. The word unnatural is only going to be used when its assumed otherwise.
Makes no sense to me. I have even taken your advice below of looking at it from a different angle. It is still gibberish.


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.
Why does the angle you look at a wooden leg change anything? BTW Artificial leg Do you remember me talking about context and common usage. I advise you not to try to be clever, your much better at barefaced lies.


Maybe my retention is low when dealing with people that believe in things like evolution.
If this is the case. Why are you posting on a thread like this? You make it clear you are not here to discuss or debate with your answer above so we come back to the conclusion I made ealier

You Are A Troll




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


True but in this case you were wrong and it was explained to you and you ignored it.
Use the quote button, show me where.


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.
And that has what to do with providing your best guess on those ratios you claimed 'most' was describing?



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

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




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
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 have answered three times now Colin,
Because most things are unnatural.

Because most things are unnatural.


Because most things are unnatural.


Because most things are unnatural.




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
The only one hiding is you, you are hiding from accepting them is all.




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.
You must be suffering from selective reading as I have supplied them over and over, and will no longer. You even asked me at one point why I will no longer provide them.

I don't care what game your playing the fact is you lost. You don't like to play by the rules and you make up your own rules as you go along then ignore input to save face.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





No you dont, you want confirmation of what you already believe.
I allready have plenty of that, but more never hurts. I wasn't looking for more if thats what your saying.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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
Talking to you, I agree.




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.
Just make sure to educate the whole world that when dealing with Colin, you need to insert imaginary question marks.




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'
Oh well, I don't make the rules. Which is where I think you are getting off track. Your so used to making your own rules as you go along that you assume everyone else is doing it as well.




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.
And still after all these pages you haven't proven otherwise, but you sure look bad trying.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.


Depends on what your referring to. Speciation has never been observed in humans, as well as most other life so it can't apply. However thats not to say that it can't exist elsewhere.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.

It looks to me as if its you that wants help. Dont tell me this is another term you cannot define. You appear to not have the smarts to provide anything but lame made up terms (undefined) and ask low education lead questions. Dont call for help. Dial a teacher, start from first grade. You may struggle at first though.
You seriously lack common sense.

Just remember your one claiming not to know what it means.




Why does the angle you look at a wooden leg change anything? BTW Artificial leg Do you remember me talking about context and common usage. I advise you not to try to be clever, your much better at barefaced lies.
It's no lie, look in your phone book to find out for yourself. They don't advertise artifical limbs, they advertise prosthetic limbs.




If this is the case. Why are you posting on a thread like this? You make it clear you are not here to discuss or debate with your answer above so we come back to the conclusion I made ealier
You Are A Troll

I'm not a troll, I'm someone that has opened your eyes and ears to whats really going on. Now if you choose to believe it or not is up to you, but the bottom line is you have fessed up to me in so many ways that I am correct.




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

You have not supplied them, I don't know what else to tell you but to supply those definitions.
And you would be wise to maintain that lie because you know from what I have shared with you, that it totally knocks evolution out of the picture and leaves us with no other choice but to accept intervention.




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

Use the quote button, show me where.
We don't need a quote button, it was allready posted, YOU need to go back and read it.




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.

And that has what to do with providing your best guess on those ratios you claimed 'most' was describing?
Well it proves how incredulous you are. You have to remember that this is an evolution thread so when you find one person agreeing with me, thats pretty real.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Not that I completly believe in it, but who says this isn't at least possible.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.


Depends on what your referring to. Speciation has never been observed in humans, as well as most other life so it can't apply. However thats not to say that it can't exist elsewhere.

Where is the lie? I don't recall a scientist ever claiming that speciation has been observed in humans. That doesn't even make sense. You don't even understand what speciation is, and I know I've explained it multiple times. Your lack of understanding about slow change over time doesn't prove anything.

Please prove me wrong and demonstrate an instance of a lie perpetrated by a biologist in regards to evolution. Show me that you actually know what a lie is.
edit on 4-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have answered three times now Colin, Because most things are unnatural.
Thats correct problem is it is the wrong answer. You have not shown how you came to that answer because to be honest it is the answer of someone with no education at all. You have been shown many times why it is wrong so the fact is you either refuse or cannot learn a thing. Its a sad fact but there you are.


The only one hiding is you, you are hiding from accepting them is all.
You have not given an answer to any points made. Why natural, so you say has forbidden uses yet unnatural does not. The reason why you have not explained is clear for all to see. You know it is wrong or you are too uneducated to know it is wrong. Either way it is a shameful display of pure ignorance from you


You must be suffering from selective reading as I have supplied them over and over, and will no longer. You even asked me at one point why I will no longer provide them.
Your ignorance and low education is only out done by your total dishonesty. You know full well you have only supplied the definitions for words contained in the terms you made up and not the terms themselves. You know the saddest thing is not your constant lies to those that try to have a conversation with you. Its you lie to yourself and are ignorant enough to fall for it.



I don't care what game your playing the fact is you lost. You don't like to play by the rules and you make up your own rules as you go along then ignore input to save face.
You dont even know the rules. Honesty is one. A considered reply to repsonses to you is another. You claim you want evidence of evolution and then reject it because it comes from an 'evolutionist'. You are shown to be wrong time after time. To have lied time after time. You do not even understand the language you abuse yet claim to be a science major. Shamefull



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Talking to you, I agree.
Oh cutting wit, if only you had any.


Just make sure to educate the whole world that when dealing with Colin, you need to insert imaginary question marks.
The old question mark ploy. You appear to have run out of ploys and just keep on using the same old tired tricks that never worked the first time. Tragic.


Oh well, I don't make the rules. Which is where I think you are getting off track. Your so used to making your own rules as you go along that you assume everyone else is doing it as well.
Problem is you have made up those rules to suit your failed argument. Show me these rules that only demand the strict use of the word natural but unnatural can be used at will. Show me why these fictional rules you made up do not apply to any other words or terms.

Explain why you think you can make up words within a sceince topic and have no need to define them? You claim to be a science major, you should at least be able to do that.


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.
and your answer is


And still after all these pages you haven't proven otherwise, but you sure look bad trying.
Your right I have only proven you to be a dishonest liar. Why would I want or even be able to prove you otherwise. You really need to take a few english lessons.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You seriously lack common sense.

Just remember your one claiming not to know what it means.
Why are you answering me? I did not use a question mark


It's no lie, look in your phone book to find out for yourself. They don't advertise artifical limbs, they advertise prosthetic limbs.
Didnt bother to read the link again then. Why am I not suprised.


I'm not a troll, I'm someone that has opened your eyes and ears to whats really going on.
Blimmey, I almost forgot how self deluded you are. Thanks for the reminder.



Now if you choose to believe it or not is up to you, but the bottom line is you have fessed up to me in so many ways that I am correct.
Alright, alright. I already said thanks for reminding me how self deluded you are dont over do it. Hold on ........ are your serious?



And you would be wise to maintain that lie because you know from what I have shared with you, that it totally knocks evolution out of the picture and leaves us with no other choice but to accept intervention.
And with that bit of news you can happily go away because as usual you have no proof, no argument, no evidence and no idea but dont let that stop you from claiming you have torn down 0ver 100 years work of thousands that did get an education.


We don't need a quote button, it was allready posted, YOU need to go back and read it
We? How many are there of you now
From your answer it looks like another claim of yours is not going to be backed up and again, you dont suprise me.


Well it proves how incredulous you are. You have to remember that this is an evolution thread so when you find one person agreeing with me, thats pretty real.
Oh well if that is the case many more on this thread have agreed with me so by your logic thats even more real. That must be the scientific method in action, Spokane style.

Doesnt explain why you can claim 3 trillion years needed for man to evolve but cannot give a rough percentage of animals that have or do not have target food even though you have your bible to back it up.

Again you have achieved another massive fail, well done



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Where is the lie? I don't recall a scientist ever claiming that speciation has been observed in humans. That doesn't even make sense. You don't even understand what speciation is, and I know I've explained it multiple times. Your lack of understanding about slow change over time doesn't prove anything.

Please prove me wrong and demonstrate an instance of a lie perpetrated by a biologist in regards to evolution. Show me that you actually know what a lie is.


www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have answered three times now Colin, Because most things are unnatural.

Thats correct problem is it is the wrong answer. You have not shown how you came to that answer because to be honest it is the answer of someone with no education at all. You have been shown many times why it is wrong so the fact is you either refuse or cannot learn a thing. Its a sad fact but there you are.
I'm only responsable for what I say, Not what you understand.




You have not given an answer to any points made. Why natural, so you say has forbidden uses yet unnatural does not. The reason why you have not explained is clear for all to see. You know it is wrong or you are too uneducated to know it is wrong. Either way it is a shameful display of pure ignorance from you
Well I'm sure you have your own reasons why Colin, I mean after all you don't believe in the word natural or wild so there you go. There is no telling what your spin off of these words is.




Your ignorance and low education is only out done by your total dishonesty. You know full well you have only supplied the definitions for words contained in the terms you made up and not the terms themselves. You know the saddest thing is not your constant lies to those that try to have a conversation with you. Its you lie to yourself and are ignorant enough to fall for it.
OMG Colin your such an idiot, and your saying the definitions can't match the terms. God forbid if that should ever happen. Your so full of it.




You dont even know the rules. Honesty is one. A considered reply to repsonses to you is another. You claim you want evidence of evolution and then reject it because it comes from an 'evolutionist'. You are shown to be wrong time after time. To have lied time after time. You do not even understand the language you abuse yet claim to be a science major. Shamefull

Of course I don't know the rules, you keep changing them.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Just make sure to educate the whole world that when dealing with Colin, you need to insert imaginary question marks.

The old question mark ploy. You appear to have run out of ploys and just keep on using the same old tired tricks that never worked the first time. Tragic.
What a shocker, just like how you keep failing to use proper puncuation.




Problem is you have made up those rules to suit your failed argument. Show me these rules that only demand the strict use of the word natural but unnatural can be used at will. Show me why these fictional rules you made up do not apply to any other words or terms.
First of all I never said the terms rules don't apply , or can't apply to other words, that is your imagination at work again. The term unnatural is assumed as most of mans intervention into things renders things from no longer being natural.

It's the same reason we have chosen the definition that isolates us from the wild, with words like civiliztion, and wilderness. But I guess you missed those again.




Explain why you think you can make up words within a sceince topic and have no need to define them? You claim to be a science major, you should at least be able to do that.
I have explained them but your telling me that made up terms are not allowed to match single word terms, even though I have allready proven to you that a term can be a single word or multiple words, But you don't listen, must have your beer goggles on.




Your right I have only proven you to be a dishonest liar. Why would I want or even be able to prove you otherwise. You really need to take a few english lessons.
Hey Colin, speaking of lessons, here is a good one for you. You don't live in the wilderness. You eat mostly processed food, or at least food that isn't organic. You live or frequent civiliztion and have more to do with other humans than all other life on the planet combined. You live in a house of sorts that was made by man. You have a computer that was made by man. It opperates by electricty that is also made by man. You bath every once in a while in a tub or shower that has piped in water also by man. The water used to feed this system was also created, and installed by man. You isolate yourself from the outdoors because of the harsh elements. So you have heat and AC, all created by man for your needs, not comfort. You have a fridge, to slow down the decay process of food, as what food we have does not tend to have a good shelf life. The fridge is not only made by man but the same electricty runs it..

As you can see Colin, your more civilized then you ever thought before. Now don't have a tear over its, or a tissy, just grow up and get over it but most of all admitt to the truth. This is not our home, and the aforementioned proves it. If you honestly feel we evolved, All I can tell you is it was a giant mistake, and we should go back to the way things were because it would appear that we have deevolved.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


This is a perfectly good example of the type of thing that would happen to Colin...

www.huffingtonpost.com... d%3D158170

Trying to get to buddy buddy with mother nature because your so convinced that are all wild, and all belong together. After all we are all related right.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I'm only responsable for what I say, Not what you understand.
Again. A very poorly constructed sentence, near enough at garbled level. Again wrong and again does not come with an argument in support of your view. The same as with all your uneducated nonsense.


Well I'm sure you have your own reasons why Colin, I mean after all you don't believe in the word natural or wild so there you go. There is no telling what your spin off of these words is.
Oh dear, where to begin. The problem with your knee trembling desire to find a father figure is that you accept one thing blindly on faith alone and then you open the door to believing in sorts of unfounded rubbish. Worse you accuse others of doing the same (transfered guilt) to justify your cowardice.

I dont have to believe in words. I learn their meaning and then use them to communicate . I use different words for different conversations depending on the people I am talking too. Talking too you I have to use baby language as you cannot comprehend past that. At work, which is technical I use proper structured words and use them in a technical context.

Oh sorry this is for you tooth. When I talk to lickle kiddies it is not the same as when I talk to the bigger boys and girls. You'll understand when you start school.


OMG Colin your such an idiot, and your saying the definitions can't match the terms. God forbid if that should ever happen. Your so full of it.
Above is an example of your relentless ignorance. You have had this explained, examples given of why supplying the definitions to single words does not define the meaning of the same words joined in a term. Remember this:
1. Swimming: Locomotion through water example breast stroke
2. Costume: An outfit or garment. Example Halloween Costume, traditional costume
3. Swimming costume: An garment or outfit worn when swimming
4. Costume swimming: I dont know, needs to be defined.

See how it works? You cannot just put words together without changing their meaning. Even the words Swimming and costume had to be defined before they became a common understanding.

TBH at least I am full of something. You are and have shown yourself to be totally devoid of any content at all.


Of course I don't know the rules, you keep changing them.
I cant change them. ATS has set them out (Defined them). Go check them out. You should have read through them when you signed up.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



What a shocker, just like how you keep failing to use proper puncuation.
Coming from you that is pure comedy



First of all I never said the terms rules don't apply , or can't apply to other words, that is your imagination at work again. The term unnatural is assumed as most of mans intervention into things renders things from no longer being natural.
And again your opinion and again offered as fact with no supporting evidence. Bees make bee hives, man constructs a box, puts the queen bee in it (bee hive). How is the bee hive unnatural?


It's the same reason we have chosen the definition that isolates us from the wild, with words like civiliztion, and wilderness. But I guess you missed those again.
Whoops your ignorance is showing again. Words like WILD, CIVILISATION and WILDERNESS do not isolate us from the wild. I have been to wild parties. I have attended civilised meetings. Churchil wrote about his wilderness years and during those years he built a wall at Chartwell House. During the winter I put out food for the wild birds who live in my area (suburban).

I have just given examples. Now you do the same.


I have explained them but your telling me that made up terms are not allowed to match single word terms, even though I have allready proven to you that a term can be a single word or multiple words, But you don't listen, must have your beer goggles on.
A shining example of your very poor reading skills and dishonest approach. I have explained fully many times why, when you put two words together the resultant term changes the words meaning within that term.

Yep a single word can be a term. Yours are not. Define those terms.


Hey Colin, speaking of lessons, here is a good one for you. You don't live in the wilderness. You eat mostly processed food, or at least food that isn't organic.
And you have based your assumptions on what?


You live or frequent civiliztion and have more to do with other humans than all other life on the planet combined.
Again you base these assumptions on what????


You live in a house of sorts that was made by man. You have a computer that was made by man. It opperates by electricty that is also made by man. You bath every once in a while in a tub or shower that has piped in water also by man. The water used to feed this system was also created, and installed by man.
Yes human nature is to build a more comfortable, safer life using our knowledge of the world we live in. Your point is? BTW the water is not created.


You isolate yourself from the outdoors because of the harsh elements.
Again a baseless assumption. BTW a very incorrect one.


So you have heat and AC, all created by man for your needs, not comfort. You have a fridge, to slow down the decay process of food, as what food we have does not tend to have a good shelf life. The fridge is not only made by man but the same electricty runs it..
And your point?


As you can see Colin, your more civilized then you ever thought before.
A bushman considers himself to be civilised and as you have been shown lives without most of what you listed.

An ant has most of what you listed so do they live in civlisation? Are they civilised?


Now don't have a tear over its, or a tissy, just grow up and get over it but most of all admitt to the truth.
here comes the sermon I guess.



This is not our home, and the aforementioned proves it.
That is your proof?
A load of baseless assumptions. Incorrect assumptions and misconceptions at that.


If you honestly feel we evolved,
I dont feel we evolved, I have looked at the overwhelming evidence which shows it to be fact.


All I can tell you is it was a giant mistake, and we should go back to the way things were because it would appear that we have deevolved.
Finished off with your normal ignorant gibberish. No such thing as 'deevolved' within evolution or a dictionary. You can go back to living the hunter gatherer life any time you like because you have that choice. My question is why dont you?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


This is a perfectly good example of the type of thing that would happen to Colin...

www.huffingtonpost.com... d%3D158170

Trying to get to buddy buddy with mother nature because your so convinced that are all wild, and all belong together. After all we are all related right.
Just more ignorance based misinformation from you. Lets look at the article shall we.

Violet and Archibald D'Mello were posing with two cheetahs at the Kragga Kamma reserve in South Africa when one of the animals began attacking the woman, leaving her husband to photograph the event.
These Cheeta's were on a reserve. Is this 'in the wild'? You can clearly see a path. Is this 'in civilisation?

Violet, Archibald and a family with children entered a petting area with two "completely tame" male cheetahs.

I would never allow excitable children anywhere near any animal. If you know anything about animals excitement spreads very quickly. The kids get excited the animal gets excited. What do you think the outcome will be?

The Cheeta's were called 'Tame' an obvious mistake and one many victims can attest too. These animals should have been treated with respect for what they are, predators. This was not done. The fault does not lay with the cats, it lies with those that ignored their nature for profit.

The attention seemed to excite the cats, and one began attacking a young girl.

The MALE cheeta's seemed to get excited by the excited young GIRL. Do I need to spell it out?

When Violet tried to intervene, one of the cheetahs jumped on her from behind, the Sun reports. And when a worker fended off the animal, the other cheetah pinned down the tourist, who eventually played dead to avoid further injury.
She increased the excitement by intervening. The only thing she did right was to play dead. This lowered the excitement and ended the game. Yes game.

Here is the story from a different source Remembering these sources are both news papers that need to sensationalise to sell their papers.

this is from the other source

"They weren't vicious. You could tell they were just excited, but it became serious very quickly," she told South Africa’s Times newspaper.
Yes when a cheeta plays with humans its the human that gets injured. Is that so hard to understand? Understandably but sadly the reactions of the humans increased the excitment so of course it got serious. Ever watched an animal hunt? It is very excited.

Now tell me. Are the Cheeta's wild animals or tame ones? Are they in the wild or civilisation? Did the family have enough knowledge of how to behave around these big cats or the risk they were taking? Were the keepers guilty of putting this family in danger for profit? What has this to do with evolution?

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



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I'm only responsable for what I say, Not what you understand.

Again. A very poorly constructed sentence, near enough at garbled level. Again wrong and again does not come with an argument in support of your view. The same as with all your uneducated nonsense.
It's actually a very good sentance, and you could learn from it.




Oh dear, where to begin. The problem with your knee trembling desire to find a father figure is that you accept one thing blindly on faith alone and then you open the door to believing in sorts of unfounded rubbish. Worse you accuse others of doing the same (transfered guilt) to justify your cowardice.
What does any of that have to do with being a coward?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What a shocker, just like how you keep failing to use proper puncuation.

Coming from you that is pure comedy
You probably do think its funny to not use proper puncuation. All it does is show your true intellgence.




First of all I never said the terms rules don't apply , or can't apply to other words, that is your imagination at work again. The term unnatural is assumed as most of mans intervention into things renders things from no longer being natural.

And again your opinion and again offered as fact with no supporting evidence. Bees make bee hives, man constructs a box, puts the queen bee in it (bee hive). How is the bee hive unnatural?
No Colin it wasn't an open invitation to a spelling b. If you need more insight to the english language, I would first suggest you join the human race and get out of the wilderness.




Whoops your ignorance is showing again. Words like WILD, CIVILISATION and WILDERNESS do not isolate us from the wild. I have been to wild parties. I have attended civilised meetings. Churchil wrote about his wilderness years and during those years he built a wall at Chartwell House. During the winter I put out food for the wild birds who live in my area (suburban).

I have just given examples. Now you do the same.
Then your ignorance must be out doing mine as your totally missing the fact that your using the same word as an adjetive instead of a noun. You seriously need to go back to school.

A wild party is not using the word wild as a noun, in the wild does. If you don't get this, there is something serioulsy wrong with you.




A shining example of your very poor reading skills and dishonest approach. I have explained fully many times why, when you put two words together the resultant term changes the words meaning within that term.
Well this is obviously where you are wrong and probably why you talk funny. Putting words together does not have to change there meaning, and if you believe this to be fact, I want to see it in writting.




Yep a single word can be a term. Yours are not. Define those terms.
And why not?




You live in a house of sorts that was made by man. You have a computer that was made by man. It opperates by electricty that is also made by man. You bath every once in a while in a tub or shower that has piped in water also by man. The water used to feed this system was also created, and installed by man.

Yes human nature is to build a more comfortable, safer life using our knowledge of the world we live in. Your point is? BTW the water is not created.
But Colin why on earth would there be the need for anything more comfortable than our natural enviroment that was meant for us ????? Perhaps because its not our enviroment.




You isolate yourself from the outdoors because of the harsh elements.

Again a baseless assumption. BTW a very incorrect one.
Then sleep outside in your PJ's tonight and see how that goes for you.




An ant has most of what you listed so do they live in civlisation? Are they civilised?
You will have to read and understand the definition to know why that wont work.




All I can tell you is it was a giant mistake, and we should go back to the way things were because it would appear that we have deevolved.

Finished off with your normal ignorant gibberish. No such thing as 'deevolved' within evolution or a dictionary. You can go back to living the hunter gatherer life any time you like because you have that choice. My question is why dont you?
People were not suppose to be hunter gatherers, it just happened that way because they needed to survive.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 374  375  376    378  379  380 >>

log in

join