Can you prove evolution wrong

Yes~!

go to this thread and it's more than a theory, it's solid hardcore scientific research.

Human DNA CheckSum

do the math.. it's all there

Originally posted by itsthetoothSo what your saying is that scientists can't lie?

Any human can lie. I'm talking about science EXPERIMENTS and the conclusions derived from them. Out of all the creationist propaganda and fallacies, not a single one has ever even come close to disproving a single evolutionary experiment, and not a single person has provided their own science or experiments that show the process as faulty or wrong. It's always lies and abysmal understanding of the science. Until you can either disprove the experiments or provide your own that contradict the findings, then evolution holds weight. Genetic mutations = proven, natural selection = proven. That's all you need to prove evolution.

Originally posted by Komodo
Yes~!

go to this thread and it's more than a theory, it's solid hardcore scientific research.

Human DNA CheckSum

do the math.. it's all there

No. That is what you call an opinion. DNA "checksum" is equivocation, first. Second, it does not prove or even come close to proving evolution wrong or intelligent design accurate. DNA can find errors in replication although it does not always find them. It's the same thing as always. A creationist claiming that he can prove his faith, by mentioning random scientific facts and things that may not be fully understood by science and then drawing ridiculous conclusions from them, and again, it has absolutely ZERO to do with evolution. Same crap, difference sewer.

reply to post by colin42


First of all there is nothing dishonest about making terms up. You even said that yourself. So what gives. It's almost as though your jealous.

Also if I made up the terms, then there is no reason to not accept them the way I have chosen, as I have made them up.
Now I don't feel that they need special definitions, but even if they do, who cares, I made them up right. So in making them up I should be allowed to give them my own definitions.

So you have a choice here is the way I see it. You can either accept my terms just in the way I have issued them, or you can accept them based on the fact that they are my terms and I made them up, which your claiming anyone has the right to do. Either way, you have to accept them.

Besides I don't see what do difficult about accepting them as there is no punctuation in them.

reply to post by colin42



I seriously doubt that by you ignoring my definitions, means I lost any debate. Only by Colins rules and in Colins world. Do you need a definition for that too?

reply to post by Barcs

Any human can lie. I'm talking about science EXPERIMENTS and the conclusions derived from them. Out of all the creationist propaganda and fallacies, not a single one has ever even come close to disproving a single evolutionary experiment, and not a single person has provided their own science or experiments that show the process as faulty or wrong.

Depends on what your talking about, speciation, microevolution, macroevolution which has never been proven.

What exactly are you talking about?

It's always lies and abysmal understanding of the science. Until you can either disprove the experiments or provide your own that contradict the findings, then evolution holds weight. Genetic mutations = proven, natural selection = proven. That's all you need to prove evolution.

The effects of natural selection have been witnessed. I do question however what proof there is that its actually evolution at work.

I find it odd that we have never been able to identify this bug, we will call it, as I have no better name at this point.
Evolution must be a bug, one so smart that it not only knows how to change our DNA and make important decistions regarding our DNA like giving us adaptation, but its also smart enough to hide so that we are unable to see it, or identify it.
It's because of this that I don't buy into the idea of evoltuion.

Just like pretending that when species no longer want to mate with each other, its automatically speciation. There is simply no proof and it looks to me like there is some assuming going on.

edit on 7-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

reply to post by itsthetooth

First of all there is nothing dishonest about making terms up. You even said that yourself. So what gives. It's almost as though your jealous.

There is something dishonest when you make up terms and use them the way you have and refuse to define them when you are asked. As for jealousy. Grow up and stop being so infantile.

Also if I made up the terms, then there is no reason to not accept them the way I have chosen, as I have made them up.

And there is not reason why you should not be able or willing to define them unless of course, you are dishonest. Which you are

Now I don't feel that they need special definitions, but even if they do, who cares, I made them up right.

Does not matter what you think. You have been asked for those definitions you refused. You have been ask to make a case for their use you refused. I agree who cares about your terms as they are not valid here after you lost the debate.

So in making them up I should be allowed to give them my own definitions.

I would write supply those definitions but why bother, you have already conceded defeat when you refused to debate their use and now they are null and void anyway.

So you have a choice here is the way I see it. You can either accept my terms just in the way I have issued them, or you can accept them based on the fact that they are my terms and I made them up, which your claiming anyone has the right to do. Either way, you have to accept them.

or I could refuse to accept them. I could also remind you everytime you try to use them how pathetically you lost the debate and how dishonest your use of them is.

Besides I don't see what do difficult about accepting them as there is no punctuation in them.

'what do difficult'? whats this a new term or another dumb mistake when trying to be smart, Do you fail at everything? By the way thats not a question, of course you do.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I seriously doubt that by you ignoring my definitions, means I lost any debate. Only by Colins rules and in Colins world. Do you need a definition for that too?

Your opportunity to supply definitions has passed you by I am afraid. You and your made up terms carry no weight in this thread.

You lost the debate by refusing to enter into it. Showing yourself to be the dishonest coward you are. My argument scared you so much you ran as you have from all logic that exposes and defies your nonsense just as I expected you too.

reply to post by colin42


Well then its clear that you chose to lose in this debate.
Of course we were debating about different things.
Mine being intervention and yours being the delustion of evolution.
You once again admitted your dishonesty by claiming to have seen my definitions but chose to not accept them. Which is all fine as I never accepted the workings of evoltuion, is it possible thats why you chose this path, probably.

Anyhow you don't win by coping out, thats a losers hand. My definitions have been issued and they stick, sorry.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Depends on what your talking about, speciation, microevolution, macroevolution which has never been proven.

What exactly are you talking about?

I'm talking about modern evolutionary synthesis, aka the process of evolution. It is observable, testable repeatable. There is no difference between macro and micro evolution beside time and I KNOW I've already told you this. Speciation is merely a term used to show the RESULTS of the evolutionary changes that eventually lead to 2 species that could once reproduce with each other, but have become so different over the years (separated by difference environments) that this can no longer happen. Also speciation has been witnessed in a lab, and unless you've got hundreds of thousands of years to kill, you won't witness "speciation in humans". That is a laughable concept. We can still measure genetic mutations in humans, however.

Just like pretending that when species no longer want to mate with each other, its automatically speciation. There is simply no proof and it looks to me like there is some assuming going on.

Who's pretending? If the sperm can no longer fertilize the egg, that shows speciation, or 2 separate sub species becoming 2 separate species. It's not about wanting to mate. Tons of animals have sex with each other that aren't the same species. You will never see a baby being born as a result, however.

Fun times. What I really wonder is why you are still in this thread debating silly semantics instead of providing evidence.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You once again admitted your dishonesty by claiming to have seen my definitions but chose to not

Quote where I did that or it didnt happen and you again show your eagerness to lie

Anyhow you don't win by coping out, thats a losers hand.

Your words and again words that you have continued to ignore during your time here where you have lost every point every time.

My definitions have been issued and they stick, sorry.

As I have said many times its bad enough that you constantly lie but whats even more tragic is that you lie to yourself. Your terms are undefined and are not accepted here.

You have played a losers hand throughout. Coped out, avoided and lied (easily seen through lies at that) to every challenge to your poorly argued delusion.

You played a losers hand. You lost your credibility. You played a losers game and lost the trust needed to debate on this thread. And the reason you played a losers hand is plain for all to see. You are a loser and a bad one at that.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by colin42

 

I wonder if tooth has found the Top 20 Logical Fallacies ? I believe he has covered all 20 of them in his posts like clock work. It's like he is playing a game to see if he can fool people with fallacies.
My hat goes off to you for keeping up with such tautology and not allowing logical fallacies to rule.

Cracking article, nice to see I've only fallen foul of a few (!!!) of those. (must try to be harder)

No mention of the 10% brain myth?

So WTH did ITT drag that up as a response from?

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

lol......did you even click the link before deciding to reply? tooth's favorite game. What does the "10% brain myth" have to do with anything at flyingfish's link, which is discussing logical fallacies tactics used in debate?

Here's the wiki on the 10% Brain Myth . It is an urban myth, it is not plausible.

This comes to mind......

Then you should have no problem directing me to the vehicle that was used to determine it to be a myth. I want to know the test that was done that scientifically rules it out.

edit on 6-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Not only did you not read flyingfish's link made evident by your 10% brain myth reply, which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the link, but you obviously didn't read mine either. It spells out why it is a myth citing it's scientific sources at the bottom, as common wiki format. There's even a link to MythBusters that de-bunkeds it SCIENTIFICALLY!

Being a obtuse troll is bad enough, but a lazy one as well, enters the realm of comedy. Hence the Abbot and Costello routine video I posted. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Your lack of understanding of the scientific method is apparent (ironic being a science major). You seem to even lack understanding of definitions, terms and context.

I see you keep claiming you have "won" this debate many times....you have failed miserably, time and time again. And if you think people are not able to refute your facts, it's because they are so ridiculous that it isn't worth the time, especially since you IGNORE all evidence presented to you and don't even visit the links supplied.


Let's do a quick poll of people following this thread shall we?

All those that think tooth has utterly failed, star this post ( or if you don't like giving stars, make a post stating your vote)

All those..........

(cont. post below)

edit on 6-5-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)

LOL...Way to gather those those stars...One more from me tho'

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

I find it odd that we have never been able to identify this bug, we will call it, as I have no better name at this point.

Just because you're ignorant, dont drag us down with you. Lets not call it a bug. Lets understand it for the process it is

Evolution must be a bug, one so smart that it not only knows how to change our DNA and make important decistions regarding our DNA like giving us adaptation, but its also smart enough to hide so that we are unable to see it, or identify it.
It's because of this that I don't buy into the idea of evoltuion.

I disagree. The reason you dont buy evolution is because you think its some little nano-machine thats been pre-programed by, (lets call him THE GRAND INTERVENTIONIST WIZARD OF ODD).

What you cant accept is that evolution is a process.

Just like pretending that when species no longer want to mate with each other, its automatically speciation. There is simply no proof and it looks to me like there is some assuming going on.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa NO LONGER WANT TO MATE. You are just toooooooooooooooooooooo funny

reply to post by idmonster

Just because you're ignorant, dont drag us down with you. Lets not call it a bug. Lets understand it for the process it is

True, it was an understatment, it would have to be a superbug.

I disagree. The reason you dont buy evolution is because you think its some little nano-machine thats been pre-programed by, (lets call him THE GRAND INTERVENTIONIST WIZARD OF ODD).

What you cant accept is that evolution is a process.

Well its not otherwise possible to think that something of that magnitude does NOT have some type of intelligence behind it. But then again you said it, I didn't.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa NO LONGER WANT TO MATE. You are just toooooooooooooooooooooo funny

Wrong assumptions are being made.

reply to post by colin42


I see so my terms as you call it, are not accepted by the DR Colin's review board. DARN.

reply to post by Barcs

There is no difference between macro and micro evolution beside time and I KNOW I've already told you this.

The problem is that there is no proof of it happening anywhere. Macroevolution has never been identified.

Speciation is merely a term used to show the RESULTS of the evolutionary changes that eventually lead to 2 species that could once reproduce with each other, but have become so different over the years (separated by difference environments) that this can no longer happen. Also speciation has been witnessed in a lab, and unless you've got hundreds of thousands of years to kill, you won't witness "speciation in humans"

But we do have that in the form of DNA from prior ancestors, and still haven't witnessed evolution in that way either. So why are humans so special from this witnissing?

What I read clearly states that some aquatic life, and bacteria and viruses and some insects are privy to speciation, not humans.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I see so my terms as you call it, are not accepted by the DR Colin's review board. DARN.

Your made up terms are not accepted. Correct.

The reason is not my review board. Its your cowardly response to a fair offer to debate your made up terms which you ran from. You hung yourself mate and you only have yourself to blame. I'll quote you.

Anyhow you don't win by coping out, thats a losers hand.

BTW you did not supply a quote of me writing

You once again admitted your dishonesty by claiming to have seen my definitions but chose to not

So you have been caught out in another very poor lie.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Komodo
Yes~!

go to this thread and it's more than a theory, it's solid hardcore scientific research.

Human DNA CheckSum

do the math.. it's all there

No. That is what you call an opinion. DNA "checksum" is equivocation, first. Second, it does not prove or even come close to proving evolution wrong or intelligent design accurate. DNA can find errors in replication although it does not always find them. It's the same thing as always. A creationist claiming that he can prove his faith, by mentioning random scientific facts and things that may not be fully understood by science and then drawing ridiculous conclusions from them, and again, it has absolutely ZERO to do with evolution. Same crap, difference sewer.

edit on 7-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

nice speech..

Prove it!

ETA: or rather .. try and Disprove it~!

reply to post by colin42

Your made up terms are not accepted. Correct.

The reason is not my review board. Its your cowardly response to a fair offer to debate your made up terms which you ran from. You hung yourself mate and you only have yourself to blame. I'll quote you.

So is it that you agree with the complete understanding of the terms and what they stand for, or just my choice of terms?

Everything about you is just riddled with dishonesty Colin.