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: 408
31
<< 405  406  407    409  410  411 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I think its relation based on association is all.
Then explain this: You have maintained that speciation is not possible and has not been observed. Yet Your link shows Natural speciation: three-spined stickleback. Parapatric speciation: Larus gull, The Ensatina salamanders, The Greenish Warbler, the grass Anthoxanthum. The hawthorn fly is being watched which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation. Artificial speciation: domestic sheep, Salt bred fruit flies. I doubt this list is extensive.

Now explain your previous comments:


Dogs and wolves have to many differences to be the same species.
and something you decided to overlook


Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other
You called me a barefaced liar yet all I see is your dishonesty stamped on every reply you make.



I have always agreed with what wiki says on speciation. Humans aren't in that.
Is that so. Let's test to see if you are telling yet another lie. Human evolution



I don't know how much clearer the question can be. I think your afraid of kicking yourself.
You asked:


Fine then I'll rephrase the question. Do you think that all changes are evolution?
Now is it my fault you have not got the education to form a question. My answer: 'What changes?' is an important question to ask to your wide open question. Example: Do I believe changing my trousers is evolution? Do I believe changing my car is evolution? Do I believe you changing the questions to fit your answers is evolution?

You want an answer, then you ask the correct question. If you have not got the intelligence to do so don’t expect an answer.



Thats because brought up usually includes feeding them you idiot.
Answer my points or move on. Don’t offer a straw man diversion and expect an answer. I am tired of your dishonesty and will pull you on it every time from now on.


So you avoid the question the 5th time, such a loser.
You provide a valid question you will get an answer till then:


Do you not get tired of your pathetic attempts at a straw man argument? News for you. You fail to deflect attention to your ignorance every time.
Here is a classic dishonest tactic from you again. The point made was you have ignored the information under the heading 'Relationships with humans'. Let me first remind you of something.


I have always agreed with what wiki says on speciation. Humans aren't in that.
The link I supplied is to a Wiki site. The information refers to the The Gay Wolves relationships with humans. You again shunned it because it says we have a relationship with the wolf and shows you wrong, very wrong in what you believe a relationship is.

It also shows the line from Gray Wolf to Domestic Dog which you also deny when it suits you. You made one simple comment on face value yet it covers so many lies. The only thing you know how to do but even here you don’t do it very well.


edit on 4-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

ATTENTION!!!!



First of all, You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
The bickering STOPS NOW!!!!!!
If you cannot post in a civil manner, please consider taking a short break.

Further off topic or rude remarks will be removed, with the possibility of temporary Posting Bans.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





True but that observation may not give you a real answer, and sometimes that is the case.

Better than your beliefs based on nothing more than your ignorance that are always wrong.
Thats not true, getting a false answer is not a good thing and I don't have a belief, I have an understanding, that happens to coincide with many authors and historical documentation.




Of course I did, but you reject them, because you are the all mighty decistion maker of definitions.

(decision not decistion)I know the importance of defining unknown terms in a public debate. YOU don’t. There is a price to pay for your ignorance. I intend to make you pay that price.
The only price that got paid is you made yourself look ignorant.




What do you mean get over it, you get over it, you lost that debate for sure. Lame as hell

You refused to enter into a debate on your made up terms. You went chicken and refused. You lost without firing a shot, your choice. Get over it

[snipped]



I'm sure we don't crap on ourselves, what I was trying to say is that its not an issue in our natural enviroment.

(environment )Nope. You have just made up nonsense to cover up your previous nonsense that you made up to avoid another question you could not and will not answer because it damages your religion, which is also nonsense

Its funny how you keep referring to how I understand the bible as a religion. Yet I have no god or anyone to have faith in, I have no belief system, I have no restrictions as religion usually does, I have no worship, so how exactly are you able to see it as a religion? Simple, the same way you see evolution as your religion.




You have some of the most ludricrious replies. So numpty please explain to me how the bee is able to detect that the farms were planeted by man.

(That’s Ludicrous not ludricrious and planted not planeted) Oh dear the irony. Bees don’t have to detect that the crops were planted by man. (you plant crops on a farm. You don’t plant farms. You have a complete disconnect from reality don’t you) When a bee discovers an abundant source it will communicate the location to the hive and feed the other bee's a sample of what they will find.

That's birds you know nothing about and now bee's. Do you really need me to teach you about the birds and the bee's. How sad are you?
Well I wouldn't think you are qualified, your unable to comprehend or accept definitions, even when they are straight from wiki, Your unable to use proper punctuation and demand that its how you want it to be done and its ok. So no I don't think so.




I see whats going on here. Your just failing to consider the fact that we have gone through great trouble to fool mother nature,

(what’s) What is quite clear to see here is you making another jumble of nonsense to avoid the true conclusion. The bee and the farmer both benefit from the others endeavours. That is a relationship. A positive relationship and more than qualifies even under your stupidity based restrictions.
If it were exclusive perhaps, if it wasn't set up by man, perhaps. Either way its a forced relationship so its not natual. I know your never going to understand this as we keep going over it. Look at it this way, if man has to do something, then its set up and not natural.




Sure, in the jungle is one example.

Man lives in ALL the jungles of the world. So they are inhabited. FAIL. Have I mentioned the Bushman?
Not every square inch he doesn't.




So there are two choices here. We either wern't suppose to be hunter gathers or we found a much easier way to get our meat.

(weren’t not wern’t) It's called farming.
Farming for meat, sure dude.




The problem is that industrializing production of meat is hard to prove that its necessarly easier.

Necessarily not necessarly) Nope it is very easy. Food production is profit lead. Efficiency means in 99.9% of cases the easiest most cost effective way
Ya but there is more to this picture now as we are no longer eating the meat off the bones.




There is money to pay for the opperation, money to pay for the meat, there is tons of processing, its not like we are just eating the meat off the bone. All in all, by far, its not easier, which leaves the only other option which was that we werent suppose to be hunter gatheres.

(operation not operation and gatherers not gatheres) That just showcases you have no idea how to come to a valid conclusion using a logic based argument. Science major indeed
Packaging, processing, butchering, shipping, cooking, and preparing we



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Who said its natural for humans?

ALL the buildings, huts, tents and camps that man builds
Do you honestly think that adapting is natural? I though not having to adapt is natural as things fit together.




You have to remember that very little to nothing we do here is natural as we are not in our element.

Show your proof. To quote you. Put up or shut up.
You have been bombarded with examples that we aren't from here and have yet to properly challenge any of them.




Here is a cat barking.

Not even close. Sounds like a cat making a noise. You are still the only one that is barking here
Your wrong again as it was actually a cat mimicking a dog.




But your understanding can still be false as you conveniently omitted supernatural involvement.

Here is the logic based, reasoned argument to my explanation showing why we cannot live in a whale A one line off hand dismissal

Now let me see. What should I base my opinion on. My logic or your supernatural maybe. Ok I have decided. You don’t have a clue. You don’t have anything to counter my logic so you evoke magic.

The 'Man cannot live in a whale' debate was won by me and you were slaughtered AGAIN
Your argument is based on the idea that man knows all, man knows everything there is to know in this universe and we can depend on that. I have to disagree, but it sure does explain why you didn't want to retain those definitions. They must have have ever made it into your vocabulary so you dismissed them as you allready know everything there is to know. What a sad little man.




Then explain this: You have maintained that speciation is not possible and has not been observed. Yet Your link shows Natural speciation: three-spined stickleback. Parapatric speciation: Larus gull, The Ensatina salamanders, The Greenish Warbler, the grass Anthoxanthum. The hawthorn fly is being watched which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation. Artificial speciation: domestic sheep, Salt bred fruit flies. I doubt this list is extensive.
Yes, I'm referring to it not being seen in humans.




Is that so. Let's test to see if you are telling yet another lie. Human evolution
You better read it again. The whole thing is listed as a hypothesis, and it even says so.




Fine then I'll rephrase the question. Do you think that all changes are evolution?

Now is it my fault you have not got the education to form a question. My answer: 'What changes?' is an important question to ask to your wide open question. Example: Do I believe changing my trousers is evolution? Do I believe changing my car is evolution? Do I believe you changing the questions to fit your answers is evolution?

You want an answer, then you ask the correct question. If you have not got the intelligence to do so don’t expect an answer.
Lord no, I have never heard of evolution being responsible for changing trousers. I'm referring to our genes changing.




Thats because brought up usually includes feeding them you idiot.

Answer my points or move on. Don’t offer a straw man diversion and expect an answer. I am tired of your dishonesty and will pull you on it every time from now on.
It's still a fact.




The link I supplied is to a Wiki site. The information refers to the The Gay Wolves relationships with humans. You again shunned it because it says we have a relationship with the wolf and shows you wrong, very wrong in what you believe a relationship is.
I'm assuming you meant gray wolf, and why exactly did you feel the need to own one?


I found your section under Folklore and mythology, need I say more? It's also all heresay.




It also shows the line from Gray Wolf to Domestic Dog which you also deny when it suits you. You made one simple comment on face value yet it covers so many lies. The only thing you know how to do but even here you don’t do it very well.
Your trying to prove relation through association of genes. The problem is that if we really did evolve from everything else, we would see a hell of a lot more smoothness in varied species. The fact is we don't. There are similarities and no smoothness in differences. The differences are to well defined and we seem to be missing that transitional proof of ANYTHING.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I'm referring to it not being seen in humans.


Of course we've seen it in humans. In fact, we are STILL evolving, and could be considered just another link in this process. In a million years they will unearth human remains and look at them just like we look at homo erectus or Lucie



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats not true, getting a false answer is not a good thing and I don't have a belief, I have an understanding, that happens to coincide with many authors and historical documentation.
If you believe asking the House sparrow will give a more reliable result than observation and study then it is you that is in error. You have been shown that in fact you have made up your own homespun religion whether you accept it or not.


The only price that got paid is you made yourself look ignorant.
Nope. By refusing to define your made up terms many times. Refusing to debate their meaning when invited you lost their use and can expect no reply. That is the price you paid.


[snipped]
Noticed the mods warning then.



Its funny how you keep referring to how I understand the bible as a religion.
Nope. I refer to your made up religion based around alien creator and your interpretation of what you say the bible shows.


Yet I have no god
You appointed an alien as your creator. A rose by any other name.


or anyone to have faith in, I have no belief system,
You have no evidence or logical supporting argument. You base everything on belief.


I have no restrictions as religion usually does, I have no worship, so how exactly are you able to see it as a religion?
Already been answered in full. I refer you to that answer.


Simple, the same way you see evolution as your religion.
As you have had explained many times. Evolution has a mass of evidence to support it. There is no need for belief.


Well I wouldn't think you are qualified, your unable to comprehend or accept definitions, even when they are straight from wiki, Your unable to use proper punctuation and demand that its how you want it to be done and its ok. So no I don't think so.
Again. You defined the words within your made up terms not the terms themselves. get over it.

As for my punctuation and spelling you used to try to get an angry response to. It has failed each time you have used this tactic and has failed again



If it were exclusive perhaps, if it wasn't set up by man, perhaps.
Nope. Its true whatever way you want to spin it. The farmer and the bee benefit from each others endeavours and that is a relationship.


Either way its a forced relationship so its not natual.
No such thing.


I know your never going to understand this as we keep going over it. Look at it this way, if man has to do something, then its set up and not natural.
And you have been shown many times over that your statement above is based on ignorance.


Not every square inch he doesn't.
Moving the goalposts changes nothing. Man lives in the ALL jungles of this world so they are inhabited and fail your requirements.


Farming for meat, sure dude.
Cattle are kept in fields, on farms for meat. Your point was?



Ya but there is more to this picture now as we are no longer eating the meat off the bones.
What was that big bone thing in the meat I ate today?


Packaging, processing, butchering, shipping, cooking, and preparing we
We what?


edit on 4-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Do you honestly think that adapting is natural? I though not having to adapt is natural as things fit together.
Again you give a random answer. Humans naturally build things. It is one of our defining traits so when we build our dwellings it is natural. Just as it is for many other animals. Did I mention the Ant?


You have been bombarded with examples that we aren't from here and have yet to properly challenge any of them.
I have been bombarded with things you believe are true but alas they are never backed with evidence or a logical argument in support. I have challenged everyone of them. So has everyone else that has taken part in this thread.


Your wrong again as it was actually a cat mimicking a dog.
Nope it was a cat making a noise.


Your argument is based on the idea that man knows all, man knows everything there is to know in this universe and we can depend on that.
Nope. It was based on my logical argument, supported with evidence and a link explaining the digestive system. None of which you addressed or responded too. Your response to it was


But your understanding can still be false as you conveniently omitted supernatural involvement.
You conveniently omitted any counter argument than that above. Your usual dismissal of a point made with no attempt at debate. You lost the point due to that.


I have to disagree, but it sure does explain why you didn't want to retain those definitions.
The post that I kept separate was solely on 'can man live in a whale'. Hiding your respones inside another post is very dishonest. You are meant to address that not deflect the debate to one you have already lost. Get over it and stick to the point at hand.


They must have have ever made it into your vocabulary so you dismissed them as you allready know everything there is to know. What a sad little man.
I asked for the definitions. Whether it was due to my lack of knowledge or your misuse of English does not matter. You made up those terms and should have supplied their meaning to allow a proper debate. Your reasons for your refusal is plain to see. Again you already lost this debate. Get over it.


Yes, I'm referring to it not being seen in humans.
Nope. You maintain it has never been witnessed. Your own link says different.


You better read it again. The whole thing is listed as a hypothesis, and it even says so.
So you lied again.



Lord no, I have never heard of evolution being responsible for changing trousers. I'm referring to our genes changing.
Then I refer you to all these 400 pages and all the evidence within it that you rejected without reason or debate.


It's still a fact.
My logically presented example of the dog guarding the goats shows it is not fact. You saying it is fact in reply with no supporting argument opposing the example I gave is not acceptable


I'm assuming you meant gray wolf, and why exactly did you feel the need to own one?
Again the tactics of a troll. I made it clear I own a sub species of the Gray Wolf. The dog. So your point is purely for affect to gain a response in the hope you can press the report button. FAILED


I found your section under Folklore and mythology, need I say more? It's also all heresay.
Nope that was a sub heading under 'Relationship with man'. It clearly says 'Relationship with man'. You say you put your trust in what Wiki says. Give a logical argument why you maintain we do not have a relationship with the wolf when the heading and information that follows, Folklore and Mythology only being part of it clearly shows we do.


Your trying to prove relation through association of genes
Already done, many times. It is not my problem you refused to look. Go back and read what you should have before.


The problem is that if we really did evolve from everything else, we would see a hell of a lot more smoothness in varied species.
Again the point being made is about the Gray Wolf and domesticated Dog, a sub species of the Gray Wolf. Stick to the point and address that.


edit on 4-6-2012 by colin42 because: Tooth hidding reply to whale post



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Of course we've seen it in humans. In fact, we are STILL evolving, and could be considered just another link in this process. In a million years they will unearth human remains and look at them just like we look at homo erectus or Lucie
But in order for those fossils to be any proof of evolution, they would have to be a cross between human and ape, and they are not. They are what appears to just be a different species all together. This is why scientists are able to identify fake claims so easily. We are still waiting for that smoking gun. And 150 years and 2.5 million fossils later we still don't have them.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Thats not true, getting a false answer is not a good thing and I don't have a belief, I have an understanding, that happens to coincide with many authors and historical documentation.

If you believe asking the House sparrow will give a more reliable result than observation and study then it is you that is in error. You have been shown that in fact you have made up your own homespun religion whether you accept it or not
How is that possible when I have no religion to claim.




The only price that got paid is you made yourself look ignorant.

Nope. By refusing to define your made up terms many times. Refusing to debate their meaning when invited you lost their use and can expect no reply. That is the price you paid.
Now at what point did I refuse to define them. Was that when I was sending you links to definitions, or when I tried defining them myself and you told me you rejected them. Which time?




Its funny how you keep referring to how I understand the bible as a religion.

Nope. I refer to your made up religion based around alien creator and your interpretation of what you say the bible shows
I see. and never mind that we have clear documentation that tells us how that happened, I assume you have documentation that says in fact it didn't happen this way, and you have proof that aliens couldn't possibly create life?




Yet I have no god

You appointed an alien as your creator. A rose by any other name.
Probably more that the idea is a possibility I'm not completly sold on it however.




or anyone to have faith in, I have no belief system,

You have no evidence or logical supporting argument. You base everything on belief.
No I'm basing everything on historic documentation. Now evolution is a fine example of basing things on a belief. Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed or proven and specieation has never been proven in humans. Further more, all of the proof that would be left behind would not only still be here but we would have a heck of a lot more transitional species and out of five million species we have none.




Well I wouldn't think you are qualified, your unable to comprehend or accept definitions, even when they are straight from wiki, Your unable to use proper punctuation and demand that its how you want it to be done and its ok. So no I don't think so.

Again. You defined the words within your made up terms not the terms themselves. get over it
Actually I pulled them straight out of the dictionary.




If it were exclusive perhaps, if it wasn't set up by man, perhaps.

Nope. Its true whatever way you want to spin it. The farmer and the bee benefit from each others endeavours and that is a relationship.
We can also shoot wild animals and let their rotting corpses attract flys to feed frogs, it doesn't mean we made a relationship with all of them, does it?

Manipulation does not count in natural relationships. If I'm wrong you need to contact serious scientists as this is a major breakthrough.




I know your never going to understand this as we keep going over it. Look at it this way, if man has to do something, then its set up and not natural.

And you have been shown many times over that your statement above is based on ignorance.
Well don't tell me what you think, tell me what you know.




Not every square inch he doesn't.

Moving the goalposts changes nothing. Man lives in the ALL jungles of this world so they are inhabited and fail your requirements.
Men do not coexist in the jungle, there just adapt and try to make things work.




Ya but there is more to this picture now as we are no longer eating the meat off the bones.

What was that big bone thing in the meat I ate today?
Well I appologize as I assumed you were eating cooked and processed meat, my bad.




Packaging, processing, butchering, shipping, cooking, and preparing we

We what?
I don't remember, it didn't fit.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Of course we've seen it in humans. In fact, we are STILL evolving, and could be considered just another link in this process. In a million years they will unearth human remains and look at them just like we look at homo erectus or Lucie
But in order for those fossils to be any proof of evolution, they would have to be a cross between human and ape, and they are not. They are what appears to just be a different species all together. This is why scientists are able to identify fake claims so easily. We are still waiting for that smoking gun. And 150 years and 2.5 million fossils later we still don't have them.



They are snap shots in time! And if you link them up (and analyze their DNA) you clearly see that they are related ancestors. We have TONS of remains that are link between humans and the ancient ancestor we shared with todays apes. If you're looking for a mix between an ape from today and a human...good luck, start reading up on the theory because you STILL don't understand it. The "missing link" argument has been debunked dozens of times in this thread





How is that possible when I have no religion to claim.


You do, you simply create your own alien religion. And it's a religion because it has ZERO objective evidence as backup.
edit on 4-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Do you honestly think that adapting is natural? I though not having to adapt is natural as things fit together.

Again you give a random answer. Humans naturally build things. It is one of our defining traits so when we build our dwellings it is natural. Just as it is for many other animals. Did I mention the Ant?
Just because we forced into an adapt or die situatuion does not mean that adapting is natural. We have learned to adapt through need, thats not to say it was our intended role of our design.




You have been bombarded with examples that we aren't from here and have yet to properly challenge any of them.

I have been bombarded with things you believe are true but alas they are never backed with evidence or a logical argument in support. I have challenged everyone of them. So has everyone else that has taken part in this thread.
And the best I have heard is that people can;t live in whales and the bible is a sci fi book. I know, I have heard it all, but I was looking for something with a little more substance. I mean after all your quick to dismiss it, you must have something of substance.




Your wrong again as it was actually a cat mimicking a dog.

Nope it was a cat making a noise.
So then what did you think about the title "barking cat?"




Your argument is based on the idea that man knows all, man knows everything there is to know in this universe and we can depend on that.

Nope. It was based on my logical argument, supported with evidence and a link explaining the digestive system. None of which you addressed or responded too. Your response to it was
I see so you made an assumption that the participants were completly digested. I think I have said this before, but I'll say it again, thats what you get for assuming.




I have to disagree, but it sure does explain why you didn't want to retain those definitions.

The post that I kept separate was solely on 'can man live in a whale'. You are meant to address that not deflect the debate to one you have already lost. Get over it and stick to the point at hand.
I have addressed it but will again, do you have something that proves its been attempted and found not possible?




They must have have ever made it into your vocabulary so you dismissed them as you allready know everything there is to know. What a sad little man.

I asked for the definitions. Whether it was due to my lack of knowledge or your misuse of English does not matter. You made up those terms and should have supplied their meaning to allow a proper debate. Your reasons for your refusal is plain to see. Again you already lost this debate. Get over it.
Well the word most is not a made up word, the term in the wild is also not made up its very well known.




Lord no, I have never heard of evolution being responsible for changing trousers. I'm referring to our genes changing.

Then I refer you to all these 400 pages and all the evidence within it that you rejected without reason or debate.
So then you do agree that changes in our genes are considered to all be from evolution. Then I bring up the example of my friend whos mom smoked while pregnant with him and he now has ADHD. Thats in his genes so ADHD must be part of evoltuion.




I found your section under Folklore and mythology, need I say more? It's also all heresay.

Nope that was a sub heading under 'Relationship with man'. It clearly says 'Relationship with man'. You say you put your trust in what Wiki says. Give a logical argument why you maintain we do not have a relationship with the wolf when the heading and information that follows, Folklore and Mythology only being part of it clearly shows we do
So let me get this straight, you will believe in folklore and mythology but not the bible





Your trying to prove relation through association of genes

Already done, many times. It is not my problem you refused to look. Go back and read what you should have before.
Thats what evolution is, it's assumed relation through association of genes.




The problem is that if we really did evolve from everything else, we would see a hell of a lot more smoothness in varied species.

Again the point being made is about the Gray Wolf and domesticated Dog, a sub species of the Gray Wolf. Stick to the point and address that.
Ya but what happened to all the species in between them, and where are the bones?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



How is that possible when I have no religion to claim.
The question is. How is it possible you do not realise it?


Now at what point did I refuse to define them.
Each and every time you were asked to supply them.


Was that when I was sending you links to definitions, or when I tried defining them myself and you told me you rejected them. Which time?
Every time you refused, defined the words contained within the term not the terms themselves. Refused to debate those terms. All those times.


I see. and never mind that we have clear documentation that tells us how that happened,
Again. Show that documentation.


I assume you have documentation that says in fact it didn't happen this way,
We have the evidence that science provides in support of the theory of evolution.


and you have proof that aliens couldn't possibly create life?
How many times do you need to be told. Evolution does not, cannot tell you about creation.


Probably more that the idea is a possibility I'm not completly sold on it however.
Apart from I don’t care what you are or are not sold on you continually use that as one of your many fall backs and diversions.


No I'm basing everything on historic documentation.
The reason you call it an historical document instead of the bible is very telling.


Now evolution is a fine example of basing things on a belief.
Belief needs no evidence. Science demands it. Evolution is based on evidence not belief.


Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed or proven and specieation has never been proven in humans.
Except all the times you have been shown the above statement is incorrect. The link you supplied that gave examples and you writing


Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other
Dogs were bred from the wolf by man. A witnessed speciation then. Witnessed evolution in action then. Your above statement is wrong then by your very own words.


Actually I pulled them straight out of the dictionary.
You actually pulled the definitions for the words contained within your made up term. I went to the trouble of giving you an example of how that changes meaning. Swimming, Costume, Swimming costume and costume swimming. You never pulled your made up terms straight out of a dictionary did you? But again I remind you that you have already lost the debate on this. You need to get over it. Move on.


We can also shoot wild animals and let their rotting corpses attract flys to feed frogs, it doesn't mean we made a relationship with all of them, does it?
You stated only one thing needs to benefit. So yep it’s a relationship. A poor and wasteful one but a relationship just the same.


Manipulation does not count in natural relationships. If I'm wrong you need to contact serious scientists as this is a major breakthrough
Again nonsense born out of ignorance


Well don't tell me what you think, tell me what you know.
Job done. Refer back.


Men do not coexist in the jungle, there just adapt and try to make things work.
Again a random garbled answer. Man lives in the all of the jungles of this world. That means they are inhabited and therefore your example fails. Its that simple.


Well I appologize as I assumed you were eating cooked and processed meat, my bad.
Nope. You have shown that your loose and incorrect use of English has let you down again.


I don't remember, it didn't fit.
I didn’t fit because you pasted the warning from the mod to get a reaction. We will see how that goes



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just because we forced into an adapt or die situatuion does not mean that adapting is natural. We have learned to adapt through need, thats not to say it was our intended role of our design.
Nope my answer stands. Building dwellings for us is as natural as a bird building a nest and an ant building a nest. No different.


And the best I have heard is that people can;t live in whales and the bible is a sci fi book.
You lost the debate on a man living in a whale. Move on. Your were told that the bible in the context of science has no more importance than a sci fi book. There is a difference.

But aside from that you have been gifted masses of good, clear information you chose not to listen. Not to debate. Your loss.


I know, I have heard it all, but I was looking for something with a little more substance. I mean after all your quick to dismiss it, you must have something of substance.
After your latest casual dismissals of the information I gave you on the goat guarding dog. The Argument against the possibility of a man living in a whale and the video XYZ supplied. I think you have a cheek to write the above. If you really want that information refer back to the last 400+ pages


So then what did you think about the title "barking cat?"
It was noisy


I see so you made an assumption that the participants were completly digested. I think I have said this before, but I'll say it again, thats what you get for assuming.
Refer you back to my post you casually dismissed. You had the chance to debate it then. That chance has past. Get over it. Move on.


I have addressed it but will again, do you have something that proves its been attempted and found not possible?
See above.


Well the word most is not a made up word, the term in the wild is also not made up its very well known.
You were asked to put those in context which you also refused. Move on.


So then you do agree that changes in our genes are considered to all be from evolution. Then I bring up the example of my friend whos mom smoked while pregnant with him and he now has ADHD. Thats in his genes so ADHD must be part of evoltuion.
XYZ gave you an explanation on this. You obviously casually dismissed that as well. I refer you back to that post.


So let me get this straight, you will believe in folklore and mythology but not the bible
Again an attempt to troll for affect. Comment on the title ' relationship with man' and ALL the information it contains not what you have cherry picked.


Thats what evolution is, it's assumed relation through association of genes.
I refer you back to the previous 400 pages.


Ya but what happened to all the species in between them, and where are the bones?
I quote you your words:


Dogs and wolves have to many differences to be the same species.
and


Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other
You tell me where all the bones are.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





How is that possible when I have no religion to claim.

The question is. How is it possible you do not realise it?
Your still avoiding and not answering the question.




Now at what point did I refuse to define them.

Each and every time you were asked to supply them.
But the only term I made up was target food so why are you saying them as though there is more than one?




Was that when I was sending you links to definitions, or when I tried defining them myself and you told me you rejected them. Which time?

Every time you refused, defined the words contained within the term not the terms themselves. Refused to debate those terms. All those times.
Well target food is just an asigned food to a species, that is prominate, obvious, and natural.




I see. and never mind that we have clear documentation that tells us how that happened,

Again. Show that documentation.
Youll have to get your own copy of a bible and read genesis.




I assume you have documentation that says in fact it didn't happen this way,

We have the evidence that science provides in support of the theory of evolution.
But that evidence is obviously false and based on what I said earlier about tracking changes. So your once again agreeing that ADHD even though its humanly induced into our species, is also part of evolution.




and you have proof that aliens couldn't possibly create life?

How many times do you need to be told. Evolution does not, cannot tell you about creation.
Oh I see, so your prejudice is wihtout reason.




Probably more that the idea is a possibility I'm not completly sold on it however.

Apart from I don’t care what you are or are not sold on you continually use that as one of your many fall backs and diversions
Then why are you commenting about it?




No I'm basing everything on historic documentation.

The reason you call it an historical document instead of the bible is very telling.
The fact that you don't accept it as such is very telling.

Wiki says its a historical document.
en.wikipedia.org...
Again do you have something that should lead anyone to believe otherwise?




Now evolution is a fine example of basing things on a belief.

Belief needs no evidence. Science demands it. Evolution is based on evidence not belief.
Sure if you accept the lack of evidence as proof. We have no bones that tie two species together which would prove evoltuion without a doubt. All of the aleged fossils that they claim prove human evolution should posses mixed DNA between humans and apes, but they don't. They are a completly different species. There is no smoking gun here.




Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed or proven and specieation has never been proven in humans.

Except all the times you have been shown the above statement is incorrect. The link you supplied that gave examples and you writing


Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other

Dogs were bred from the wolf by man. A witnessed speciation then. Witnessed evolution in action then. Your above statement is wrong then by your very own words.
So at last, you do admit that crocoduck is real, and the interbreeding of species is part of evolution. So when species mix, thats evolution, When they come out deformed,thats evolution, when they die,thats evolution, when they live,thats evolution, when they refuse to cross breed, thats also evolution. In essence everything that has anything to do with life and how it changes or for that matter refuses to change, all fits under one umbrella of evolution. None of which can be predicted, or followed as we would be able to see in our own DNA that evolution happened.




Actually I pulled them straight out of the dictionary.

You actually pulled the definitions for the words contained within your made up term. I went to the trouble of giving you an example of how that changes meaning. Swimming, Costume, Swimming costume and costume swimming. You never pulled your made up terms straight out of a dictionary did you? But again I remind you that you have already lost the debate on this. You need to get over it. Move on.

Ok but I also gave you a clear answer that your example is actually rare and not common in the english language, and that in fact the laymen terms are usually the most common used. In short they don't HAVE to work in the unobvious way you exampled and they usually don't. So your making an assumption, and your wrong, they don't in this case. Except for target food.
edit on 4-6-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





We can also shoot wild animals and let their rotting corpses attract flys to feed frogs, it doesn't mean we made a relationship with all of them, does it?

You stated only one thing needs to benefit. So yep it’s a relationship. A poor and wasteful one but a relationship just the same.
It requires action on our part, I might add a pretty laborious one at that, which requires preping and ferterlizing and watering of the earth to ready it for seed. The work is so tedious that usually machines are used to get all the work done. It's an involved process just so that we can fool mother nature into doing the rest of the work for us.




Manipulation does not count in natural relationships. If I'm wrong you need to contact serious scientists as this is a major breakthrough

Again nonsense born out of ignorance
So then I go back once again to the field mouse. Leaving scraps at your doorstep for the field mouse does not automatically conver him into a door mouse. Of course your claiming its still a relationship so it actually does.




Men do not coexist in the jungle, there just adapt and try to make things work.

Again a random garbled answer. Man lives in the all of the jungles of this world. That means they are inhabited and therefore your example fails. Its that simple.
However without specialized training or experience those people would die in the jungle. So your example of the word simple is false. There is nothing simple about living in the jungle. I would guess you probably don't even have that training yourself. I suggest you give it ago minus the training and see how long you can live in the jungle.




Well I appologize as I assumed you were eating cooked and processed meat, my bad.

Nope. You have shown that your loose and incorrect use of English has let you down again.
Well you must be the first person I have words with that still eats raw meat.




I don't remember, it didn't fit.

I didn’t fit because you pasted the warning from the mod to get a reaction. We will see how that goes
Actually I don't think I did that.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your still avoiding and not answering the question.
Nope you had your answer. Refer back to that.


But the only term I made up was target food so why are you saying them as though there is more than one?
Redundant adaption was one as for the others you will have to refer back as since you lost the debate on these and refused to define them I have no need to remember meaningless made up terms.


Well target food is just an asigned food to a species, that is prominate, obvious, and natural.
Told you already. Your made up terms are not accepted. Too late to try to define them now. Get over it. Move on.



Youll have to get your own copy of a bible and read genesis.
Not good enough. You made the statement that you have the documentation. You provide it.


But that evidence is obviously false and based on what I said earlier about tracking changes. So your once again agreeing that ADHD even though its humanly induced into our species, is also part of evolution.
I refer you back to the previous 400 pages.


Oh I see, so your prejudice is wihtout reason.
Nope. Its pretty simple. Evolution has nothing to say on creation. You have been told this many times.



Then why are you commenting about it?
I'm not. You are.



The fact that you don't accept it as such is very telling.
It does not have to be telling. I made it clear I don’t need to refer to the bible as I have more reliable unambiguous sources.


Wiki says its a historical document.
Show where.


Sure if you accept the lack of evidence as proof.
That is your outlook not mine
The rest of your post has been answered. Refer back.


So at last, you do admit that crocoduck is real,
Never mentioned the crocoduck. Again your post does not attempt to address the points I made. Address that.


Ok but I also gave you a clear answer that your example is actually rare and not common in the english language, and that in fact the lamen terms are usually the most common used.
Your back on the definition thing again. Too late you lost that debate and the chance to supply the meanings to your made up terms. Get over it. Move on.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Just because we forced into an adapt or die situatuion does not mean that adapting is natural. We have learned to adapt through need, thats not to say it was our intended role of our design.

Nope my answer stands. Building dwellings for us is as natural as a bird building a nest and an ant building a nest. No different.
I think thats obviously wrong. Different species are equipped to work with specific things as an example, beaver is well equipped for working with wood and mud. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is made for doing what he does. Looking at humans I see a different story. I don't have teeth for shaping wood, and my hands don't appear to be specifically for working with wood. Now we have adapted by making tools that we can work with wood, but its only working because we are very smart. Being very smart is not proof that we were made and put here for building homes, I'm sorry but your wrong.




And the best I have heard is that people can;t live in whales and the bible is a sci fi book.

You lost the debate on a man living in a whale. Move on. Your were told that the bible in the context of science has no more importance than a sci fi book. There is a difference.

But aside from that you have been gifted masses of good, clear information you chose not to listen. Not to debate. Your loss.
Oh I lost, wow, you must be the judge and jury. No I didn't lose Colin, its your mind trying to play tricks on you.




I know, I have heard it all, but I was looking for something with a little more substance. I mean after all your quick to dismiss it, you must have something of substance.

After your latest casual dismissals of the information I gave you on the goat guarding dog. The Argument against the possibility of a man living in a whale and the video XYZ supplied. I think you have a cheek to write the above. If you really want that information refer back to the last 400+ pages
Seriously all I have gotten is a bunch of hot air, with no substance.




So then what did you think about the title "barking cat?"

It was noisy
WTH, the title was noisy? Did you even read the question?




I see so you made an assumption that the participants were completly digested. I think I have said this before, but I'll say it again, thats what you get for assuming.

Refer you back to my post you casually dismissed. You had the chance to debate it then. That chance has past. Get over it. Move on.
Actually you brought it up again, but I wont press that, what I will say is that you lost on the whale for not producing any evidence of it being disproven. The bible is documentation explaining historical events that took place usually with supernatural intervention. So there could be a reason why you might not be able to understand it. You claim I'm claiming magic, but supernatural powers are not magic. Then again I can see how a lack of understanding could provoke someone to process it in that way. It's clear you have no understanding of the term supernatural.




Well the word most is not a made up word, the term in the wild is also not made up its very well known.

You were asked to put those in context which you also refused. Move on.


So then you do agree that changes in our genes are considered to all be from evolution. Then I bring up the example of my friend whos mom smoked while pregnant with him and he now has ADHD. Thats in his genes so ADHD must be part of evoltuion.

XYZ gave you an explanation on this. You obviously casually dismissed that as well. I refer you back to that post.
I'm not talking to xyz in this reply, I'm talking to you. I'm asking what you think about ADHD being induced durring pregnancy and if that can be claimed as part of evolution.

This is really confusing me as one thing that was made very clear to me, and I'm not blaming you specifically as I know you can't speak for everyone, nor can everyone speak for you, is that it was clear that evolution had nothing to do with regular procreation.




So let me get this straight, you will believe in folklore and mythology but not the bible

Again an attempt to troll for affect. Comment on the title ' relationship with man' and ALL the information it contains not what you have cherry picked.
Oh I see, so if the bible was about our relationships with other life, then you would be all over it. Well its exactly about our relationship with other life, alien life.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other

You tell me where all the bones are
Let me explain what your over looking. It was made very clear to me that Crocoduck is NOT an example of evolution. Now your mixing a dog and wolf and saying that it is.

So which is it, am I right, or am I right?

It was clear that mixed breeding is not an avenue of evolution. Or do the rules change as you go along?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It requires action on our part, I might add a pretty laborious one at that, which requires preping and ferterlizing and watering of the earth to ready it for seed. The work is so tedious that usually machines are used to get all the work done. It's an involved process just so that we can fool mother nature into doing the rest of the work for us.
Again you have not addressed the point I made. You have just posted some random reply.

Address the point I made: You stated only one thing needs to benefit. So yep it’s a relationship. A poor and wasteful one but a relationship just the same.


So then I go back once again to the field mouse. Leaving scraps at your doorstep for the field mouse does not automatically conver him into a door mouse. Of course your claiming its still a relationship so it actually does.
Your example is total nonsense. Why would I claim that nonsense as a relationship?



However without specialized training or experience those people would die in the jungle. So your example of the word simple is false. There is nothing simple about living in the jungle. I would guess you probably don't even have that training yourself. I suggest you give it ago minus the training and see how long you can live in the jungle.
Again. You described one of the factors of 'in the wild' as being an area that is NOT inhabited. You gave the jungle as an example. Man inhabits ALL the jungles of this world. Your example failed. Your post above has nothing to do with that. Address the point and my answer not some random unrelated reply.


Well you must be the first person I have words with that still eats raw meat.
Never said I eat raw meat. You claimed we don’t eat meat off the bone. You were in error again. You never ate spare ribs? chops? to name a few. Don’t blame me if you cannot form a coherent question.


Actually I don't think I did that.
Must have been alien intervention then.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Now your mixing a dog and wolf and saying that it is.


Yes, because dogs are a SUBSPECIES of wolves!! The crocodile on the other hand is a completely different species than ducks.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 405  406  407    409  410  411 >>

log in

join