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: 410
31
<< 407  408  409    411  412  413 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So then you are agreeing that we actually don't posses a purpose in life, ours is to make tools to do anything.

Do you even read what you are meant to be replying too? Address what I wrote.
Excuse me, your take on this was we were meant to make tools to allow us to do anything. In other words no direction.




Well I'm all for I can imagine therefore I am, but don't you think your take on it is a little to far?

Again. Answer the point made as I did yours not some random poorly constructed sentence.
Hey your the one that never makes any sense, you write in tounges.




Your wrong, if our hands were specifically made for making tools, we would be better equipped to do so, and not need a plethora of other tools to make some tools. It's a little redundant if you ask me.

Our hands evolved. They were not designed. We do amazing things with our hands. We can even communicate with them
Thats fine and dandy, I'm not interested in the things we go to school for that make us look smarter, I'm interested in what things we do instinctivly with our hands, as those would be more natural. In case you don't understand the question, I want to know what things we do with out hands with no formal training, which obviously includes building tools to make other tools.




Then evolution has failed us because we aren't able to just make the tools we need, often times we need tools to make tools, epic fail.

The reason we make so many tools is we make so many things. You are devoid of any logic at all.
And making is an effort to adapt, meaning that evolution has failed us. We wouldn't have to adapt had we of evolved.




You really don’t read anything you reply to do you? See that bright green bold linky thing that when you mouse over it a hand appears and the letters go white. Well that is a link A link to the source of that box with a black background and blue letters which is external text.

If when that hand appears you left mouse click even more magic happens and you are taken to the source of the external text. Classic. How long have you been posting here? Look more magic. ------> Man and Wolf




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





True but we do isolate ourselves from nature and choose to not mingle with it on a regular basis. There are a few that try and prefer it, but the most of us live in city dwelings.

So we seperate ourselves from mother nature.

Some like you do avoid nature some don’t. That is very different to 'Everything man does is not natural.'
Well there are people that do make a serious effort to connect and waddle in nature. The thing that your totally not seeing here is that, that in itself is an eye opening clue. You see if we honestly did have any connections with nature, we wouldn't have to try to connect with it. It would just happen naturally.




Some like you do avoid nature some don’t. That is very different to 'Everything man does is not natural.'


And what are the natural steps of that process? It's not a natural process where we don't have to be taught first how to sow.

Planting the seeds is the natural step : puz: Where is the link to 'forced seeding' ?
It's forced because man is forcing it to happen, with a lot of steps I might add. If you feel differently about this please explain what part of what we do for sowing is natural, and why.




Well sure, after much redundant adaptation, we can make mother nature work for us. In a matter of speaking.

Above is another avoidance tactic. It didn’t work. Address the point made. The bee and the farmer benefit from each other’s endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that.
Well that was the whole point, its anything but simple.




Well the proof is simple, they do it, continue to do, and will always do it, thats the proof.

And that is your proof? That shows the beaver is designed is a fact. Another epic fail
Ya there is no way he evolved or shape shifted into being the dam builder that he is. He would have had to have his evoltuion changes in motion, prior to trees being made and sorry but I don't believe in tandam pre meditated evoltuion.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Oh My, This NonSense (aka ToothSense) is still going on?

Colin, their is obviously nothing you can do or say that will cure Tooth, and their is nothing more Tooth can say to inflict his "communicable disease ;-) ) on you (nor can he help you debate, as improvement in debate kinda requires the opponent to understand reasoning and logic)..


I call for the following:

In recognition of the epic back and forth Tooth and Colin have gone through, their should be put up a poll.... And we readers should decide ... (yes, the readers have already decided, but still, just to shut tooth up)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Here is something you can answer for me Colin, since your so sure the supernatural doesn't exist.
Read up on this guy named Donnie Decker AKA the rain boy. Donnie had a power where he was able to make it rain indoors. There were dozens of witnesses, including the police and friends. In addition he was able to make water form on the ground and fly upwards, and sideways. He also levitated in front of a group of people in the same event.

With so many witnesses, it couldn't possibly be a hoax, and the police don't usually lie either. Since there is no way that someone could live in a whale, I figured you would probably say the same thing about rain occuring indoors, and rain going upwards, and sideways, or even about levitation.

There is even a documentry about it on HULU...
www.hulu.com...

I wanted your expert opinion since supernatural powers couldn't possibly exist.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Except, all the objective evidence clearly proves that we evolved as part of this ecosystem...while your claim on the other hand has ZERO evidence as backup.

Oh, and regarding our teeth not working...eat an apple you muppet

Every time you post I have to think about that one Family Guy episode btw
Ya you totally missed the teeth thing. And no there is nothing in our ecosystem that tells us we evolved. We had to look at our DNA and guess that its the avenue that will tell us, and its not.


So you're simply going to ignore that both the fossil record and DNA analysis fully back up the theory of evolution? Are you so blinded by your own personal alien religion that you can't even accept reality anymore? That's really sad tooth, and I feel sorry for you



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats fine and dandy, I'm not interested in the things we go to school for that make us look smarter,
I am pretty sure you have NEVER been interested in the things we go to school for. i.e. To get an education not to look smarter.


I'm interested in what things we do instinctivly with our hands, as those would be more natural. In case you don't understand the question, I want to know what things we do with out hands with no formal training, which obviously includes building tools to make other tools.
We show love with our hands, we show hatred with our hands, we explore the world around us from craddle to the grave using our hands. We produce unbelievable works of art, build breathtaking architecture.

In case you dont understand the answer. If you were to draw the defining charecters of the himan race it would be a large brain with two hands that have oposable thumbs.


It would have had more meaning had you of posted the link to begin with.
now I know you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid answering my point. Here it is again.

Here is another link you will not read: Man and Wolf

Wolves and man have had the longest harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship of any two species in the history of the Earth.
Read that then respond to the Heading from the original link 'Relationship with Humans'.


A jungle is in the wild. Forrest is in the wild. Any place where man does not seriously occupy.
This is why defining meaning is so important. One of your stipulations was 'in the wild' means uninhabited. Seriously inhabbited (Please define 'seriously inhabited'), is you moving the goalposts because again your point failed. Mine has not. Man inhabits every jungle on this planet. You still have not given me an example of in the wild.


The only think we get help with is the sun, some rain and some polination by bees. Of course this doesn't mean we have a relationship with the bees, thats like saying we have a relationship with the sun and the rain.
Apart from your point being a waste of space the part above made me laugh. Typical you.
Classic.


Well your confusing man trying to live in nature with him being in his element, while I have done a pretty good job proving that in fact he isn't.
Have I mentioned your seriously deluded lately? Now again The bee and the farmer benefit from each others endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Address this point.


edit on 7-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's forced because man is forcing it to happen, with a lot of steps I might add. If you feel differently about this please explain what part of what we do for sowing is natural, and why.
Where is the link to explain 'forced seeding'? If you believe what you have written above is coherent logic then you have failed again.

The plants processes are forced then. They to have to go through a lot of processes to produce seeds. I know you base your world view around laziness. How much you can be gifted for how little effort you put in but that is not how the world turns.


Well that was the whole point, its anything but simple.
Another random answer but not an answer to my point: The bee and the farmer benefit from each other’s endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Answer that.


Ya there is no way he evolved or shape shifted into being the dam builder that he is.
Yes, so you say. You also say the beavers design is a fact. Facts are backed by evidence. You still have not supplied that evidence. Try doing that.


He would have had to have his evoltuion changes in motion, prior to trees being made and sorry but I don't believe in tandam pre meditated evoltuion.
You can’t even spell evolution let alone show it wrong with another nonsense based rant. Classic



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I wanted your expert opinion since supernatural powers couldn't possibly exist.
In case it has escaped your memory again. This thread is MEANT to be about those that say evolution is false explaining the diversity we see around us without referring to evolution.

Debating or more correctly trying to get you to debate your belief that a man can live in a whale was mad enough. To enter into how it rained indoors is one step into your madness I am not prepared to take.

How about you concentrate on answering all those unanswered questions and points.



edit on 7-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So you're simply going to ignore that both the fossil record and DNA analysis fully back up the theory of evolution? Are you so blinded by your own personal alien religion that you can't even accept reality anymore? That's really sad tooth, and I feel sorry for you
Well its not that I'm not ignoring them, did you ever consider that there are other possibilities? Not everthing is black and white, but I can see you want it to be.

Fossil records could just be showing that we have other species that are missing. It makes more sense that intervention caused this due to transpermia. Bringing other life here causes an unbalance and causes extinctions.

Evolutionists believe this is due to evolution, when in fact its due to transpermia. DNA analysis has never closed the gap on two species, and if it ever did this would be proof of evolution. As an example if they were to find DNA that showed a variation between apes and humans, that would be the smoking gun for sure. Instead they are just finding new species and assuming its a common ancestor.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I'm interested in what things we do instinctivly with our hands, as those would be more natural. In case you don't understand the question, I want to know what things we do with out hands with no formal training, which obviously includes building tools to make other tools.

We show love with our hands, we show hatred with our hands, we explore the world around us from craddle to the grave using our hands. We produce unbelievable works of art, build breathtaking architecture.

In case you dont understand the answer. If you were to draw the defining charecters of the himan race it would be a large brain with two hands that have oposable thumbs.
Well that was a really good try but I believe that we are taught to use our hands for love and hate, even if your right, it doesn't seem to be an important task related to basic life.

Using our hands to make tools is redundant, its like saying the original tools aren't good enough. You see there is actually things we would instinctivly know how to do and could complete with our basic hands. Of course those things are not here because we are not from here.




It would have had more meaning had you of posted the link to begin with.

now I know you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid answering my point. Here it is again.

Here is another link you will not read: Man and Wolf
The claim that wolves were on good terms with us up untill the last 150 years because we began to eradicate them is idiotic. Wolves are NOT sentient beings.




A jungle is in the wild. Forrest is in the wild. Any place where man does not seriously occupy.

This is why defining meaning is so important. One of your stipulations was 'in the wild' means uninhabited.
Well uninhabited by man anyhow.




Seriously inhabbited (Please define 'seriously inhabited'), is you moving the goalposts because again your point failed.
In this context it's all about man, and where man lives or doesn't live. Most men do NOT live in a jungle or forrest.




Mine has not. Man inhabits every jungle on this planet. You still have not given me an example of in the wild.
It's the same thing, an area where man doesn't inhabit or rarely inhabits.




The only think we get help with is the sun, some rain and some polination by bees. Of course this doesn't mean we have a relationship with the bees, thats like saying we have a relationship with the sun and the rain.

Apart from your point being a waste of space the part above made me laugh. Typical you. Classic
It's clear that your wrong, so you'll just have to go on.




Well your confusing man trying to live in nature with him being in his element, while I have done a pretty good job proving that in fact he isn't.

Have I mentioned your seriously deluded lately? Now again The bee and the farmer benefit from each others endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Address this point.
Again its like squishing a mouse with your foot, then attracting flys, and now claiming that man has a relationship with flys as a result. I put my key in the car ignition and it turns over the engine, does that mean I also have a relationship with my car?




It's forced because man is forcing it to happen, with a lot of steps I might add. If you feel differently about this please explain what part of what we do for sowing is natural, and why.

Where is the link to explain 'forced seeding'? If you believe what you have written above is coherent logic then you have failed again.
Again, I'm just calling it forced because its not natural. Are there some steps you can give that prove it to be natural?




The plants processes are forced then. They to have to go through a lot of processes to produce seeds. I know you base your world view around laziness. How much you can be gifted for how little effort you put in but that is not how the world turns.
On the contrary most lfe takes the shortes path to what they want. Anyhow those processes are still all natural. It's not the amount of processes that make them forced, that would be redundant if anything, it's all done naturally.




Well that was the whole point, its anything but simple.

Another random answer but not an answer to my point: The bee and the farmer benefit from each other’s endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Answer that.
I an extremely complex unnatural way, you are correct. I'm looking for natural events.




Ya there is no way he evolved or shape shifted into being the dam builder that he is.

Yes, so you say. You also say the beavers design is a fact. Facts are backed by evidence. You still have not supplied that evidence. Try doing t



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Ya there is no way he evolved or shape shifted into being the dam builder that he is.

Yes, so you say. You also say the beavers design is a fact. Facts are backed by evidence. You still have not supplied that evidence. Try doing that.
Well thats only becuase you are assuming that I meant a creator made him. Evolution could have been his designer in a matter of speaking.




He would have had to have his evoltuion changes in motion, prior to trees being made and sorry but I don't believe in tandam pre meditated evoltuion.

You can’t even spell evolution let alone show it wrong with another nonsense based rant. Classic
And you can't address my reply.




I wanted your expert opinion since supernatural powers couldn't possibly exist.

In case it has escaped your memory again. This thread is MEANT to be about those that say evolution is false explaining the diversity we see around us without referring to evolution.

Debating or more correctly trying to get you to debate your belief that a man can live in a whale was mad enough. To enter into how it rained indoors is one step into your madness I am not prepared to take.

How about you concentrate on answering all those unanswered questions and points
In case you forgot, I have addressed that, and I'll say it again that a creator could have used recycled parts, to create additional life. Just like how we do with mechanics.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So you're simply going to ignore that both the fossil record and DNA analysis fully back up the theory of evolution? Are you so blinded by your own personal alien religion that you can't even accept reality anymore? That's really sad tooth, and I feel sorry for you
Well its not that I'm not ignoring them, did you ever consider that there are other possibilities? Not everthing is black and white, but I can see you want it to be.

Fossil records could just be showing that we have other species that are missing. It makes more sense that intervention caused this due to transpermia. Bringing other life here causes an unbalance and causes extinctions.

Evolutionists believe this is due to evolution, when in fact its due to transpermia. DNA analysis has never closed the gap on two species, and if it ever did this would be proof of evolution. As an example if they were to find DNA that showed a variation between apes and humans, that would be the smoking gun for sure. Instead they are just finding new species and assuming its a common ancestor.


Actually, all the evidence suggests exactly the opposite of what you just wrote



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The claim that wolves were on good terms with us up untill the last 150 years because we began to eradicate them is idiotic. Wolves are NOT sentient beings.
You have now avoided responding to two places where it states we have a relationship with the wolf and a long standing one at that. Are you going to address that point or do I claim another win because you refused to turn up?



Well uninhabited by man anyhow.



In this context it's all about man, and where man lives or doesn't live. Most men do NOT live in a jungle or forrest.



It's the same thing, an area where man doesn't inhabit or rarely inhabits.

So you have decided that you will not use 'in the wild' then as you seem unable to give me an example. One last time. Are you going to supply an example. If you say jungle you lose.



It's clear that your wrong, so you'll just have to go on.



Again its like squishing a mouse with your foot, then attracting flys, and now claiming that man has a relationship with flys as a result. I put my key in the car ignition and it turns over the engine, does that mean I also have a relationship with my car?
Man's relationship with the car

Another sad anology and another failure to answer the point. 5 pages is enough chances for you.

You have not addressed the point again. Last chance: The bee and the farmer benefit from each others endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Address this point. Failure to address it directly, results in you losing again.


Again, I'm just calling it forced because its not natural. Are there some steps you can give that prove it to be natural?
So again you have misused the English language and came up with another meaningless term to hide behind.
You are the one claiming that a man dispersing seeds is not natural yet an animal dispersing seeds is natural. Growth is a natural process. So if the seed is dispersed by a bird or a man the result is the same. A plant grows from the seed.
There is no difference between man and any other animal dispersing the seed. We are all animals. The result is the same. So either both are not natural or both are natural.


I an extremely complex unnatural way, you are correct. I'm looking for natural events.
Well here is your undefined term again. Unnatural way

1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.

2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.

3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.

4.lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.
So explain why a man planting a seed is an 'unnatural way'. Please use English.



edit on 7-6-2012 by colin42 because: Man's relationship with the car



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well thats only becuase you are assuming that I meant a creator made him. Evolution could have been his designer in a matter of speaking.
So what was the beaver designed by: A supernatural force or a natural process described by Evolution?


And you can't address my reply.
Sorry but how many points and questions have you left unaddressed over just the last five pages?



In case you forgot, I have addressed that, and I'll say it again that a creator could have used recycled parts, to create additional life. Just like how we do with mechanics.
The questions and points I referred to were the ones I have to constantly remind you of and you avoid.

I am very aware of your answer to diversity, one line of nonsense with nothing in support. An excellent indication of your level of ignorance on the subject.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Actually, all the evidence suggests exactly the opposite of what you just wrote
And what exactly is that? The only thing that even looks plausable is relation through association of DNA, and thats it.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


It seems to me if we look at Genesis closely it describes evolution pretty well, although I'll admit it's the short hand version
...

So what about that? Both sides win with my viewpoint. No more fussing and fighting yeaaaa! Oh but wait we could never admit there is a God right? Everyone knows that complex design just pops out of nothingness lol! Oh no wait I have it backwards we could never admit in evolution could we? God could never use his own creation as process to continue creation... huh right? Oh my... what to do...?



OK seriously are you just doing this for the stars? Because no one will give an inch on either side, the brainwashing goes to deep on both sides to meet in the middle...Just saying



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The claim that wolves were on good terms with us up untill the last 150 years because we began to eradicate them is idiotic. Wolves are NOT sentient beings.

You have now avoided responding to two places where it states we have a relationship with the wolf and a long standing one at that. Are you going to address that point or do I claim another win because you refused to turn up?
Nope actually you have been lying all this time making the claim that we have a relationship with wolves, but obviously from that article, we haven't had one for 150 years. So unless your older than 150 years there would be no reason in the world why you should believe we have a relationship with them.




So you have decided that you will not use 'in the wild' then as you seem unable to give me an example. One last time. Are you going to supply an example. If you say jungle you lose
Non civilized people would make them barbarric. I just asked someone for there opinion on this, and they told me the jungle is the perfect example of in the wild.




Man's relationship with the car

Another sad anology and another failure to answer the point. 5 pages is enough chances for you.

You have not addressed the point again. Last chance: The bee and the farmer benefit from each others endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Address this point. Failure to address it directly, results in you losing again
Again your example is a lot like killing a mouse on the floor, that attracks flys so you now claim we have a relationship with flys. While it's inadvertant, and not obvious, its also unnatural. Your also once again assuming bounderies where the bee has a relationship with the crop, and NOT the person.

But hey its what you do best, take things out of context and slide points to the degree that they no longer apply.




Again, I'm just calling it forced because its not natural. Are there some steps you can give that prove it to be natural?

So again you have misused the English language and came up with another meaningless term to hide behind.
You are the one claiming that a man dispersing seeds is not natural yet an animal dispersing seeds is natural. Growth is a natural process. So if the seed is dispersed by a bird or a man the result is the same. A plant grows from the seed.
There is no difference between man and any other animal dispersing the seed. We are all animals. The result is the same. So either both are not natural or both are natural
Wrong again Colin, it was a baby language to help you absorb terms that you either don't want to or cant understand.




Well here is your undefined term again. Unnatural way
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.

2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.

3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.

4.lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

So explain why a man planting a seed is an 'unnatural way'. Please use English.
Because its not taking place at the hands of mother nature.

You see this keeps coming around in full circle because I told you that you were wrong about whats considered natural and whats not. I even gave you the wiki definition. Anything that has mans hand in it which alters it, is considered unnatural.

Of course what no one has figured out is why that is, or why we look at it in this way, and treat things in this manner is because we ARE NOT natural to this planet.




Well thats only becuase you are assuming that I meant a creator made him. Evolution could have been his designer in a matter of speaking.

So what was the beaver designed by: A supernatural force or a natural process described by Evolution?
I know about as much on that as you do. What I do know is that there is probably something that we have yet to learn in terms of creation and we are far from knowing the truth.




In case you forgot, I have addressed that, and I'll say it again that a creator could have used recycled parts, to create additional life. Just like how we do with mechanics.

The questions and points I referred to were the ones I have to constantly remind you of and you avoid.

I am very aware of your answer to diversity, one line of nonsense with nothing in support. An excellent indication of your level of ignorance on the subject.
So what, get on with it, I never claimed to have all the answers.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Nope actually you have been lying all this time making the claim that we have a relationship with wolves, but obviously from that article, we haven't had one for 150 years. So unless your older than 150 years there would be no reason in the world why you should believe we have a relationship with them.


We have an intimate relationship with wolves here in MT. Since January 1995 wolves were captured in Canada and then transported into Yellowstone Park were they are thriving and without our intervention would not exist. The return of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, has had a profound rebirth of life in the ecosystem of the park.
This relationship has changed our view of wolves in unexpected ways that have been good for many species including us.
Return of Wolves

No lies here just reality.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 
I find no conflict between Evolution and a creative force. Evolution has nothing whatever to say on creation just how life proceded once it started to what we see today.

So the only people with a scab on their lip are those that do not understand what evolution describes or those that have no real faith in their belief if it can be threatened by the evidence used by evolution to explain diversity.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Nope actually you have been lying all this time making the claim that we have a relationship with wolves, but obviously from that article, we haven't had one for 150 years. So unless your older than 150 years there would be no reason in the world why you should believe we have a relationship with them.
So from your answer I have won anyway. If it was true that we had a relationship 150 years ago we still had a relationship. Job done.



Non civilized people would make them barbarric. I just asked someone for there opinion on this, and they told me the jungle is the perfect example of in the wild.
Did you tell your friend that 'In the wild' cannot be, according to you anywhere that is inhabited by man? Doesn't matter anyhow. You have again failed to provide a valid example of in the wild that conforms with your silly restrictions. Your time has run out. 'In the wild' is no longer acceptable when writing to me.


Again your example is a lot like killing a mouse on the floor, that attracks flys so you now claim we have a relationship with flys. While it's inadvertant, and not obvious, its also unnatural. Your also once again assuming bounderies where the bee has a relationship with the crop, and NOT the person.

But hey its what you do best, take things out of context and slide points to the degree that they no longer apply.
Oh I am going to enjoy this.
You have already admitted above that we do indeed have relationships with all life so your point here is REDUNDANT.



Wrong again Colin, it was a baby language to help you absorb terms that you either don't want to or cant understand.
It is obviously infantile in its wording and its content but that is the way you write and think. The evidence of that is clear throughout this thread.



Because its not taking place at the hands of mother nature.
You do know that there is no such person as 'Mother Nature' don’t you?


You see this keeps coming around in full circle because I told you that you were wrong about whats considered natural and whats not. I even gave you the wiki definition. Anything that has mans hand in it which alters it, is considered unnatural.
I gave you the definition which you must have not read again because nowhere does it say 'Anything that has mans hand in it which alters it, is considered unnatural'. In fact it says in one description '4.lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman.'

So put 'unnatural way' into context with regards to planting seeds. Try using grown up language if you are capable.


I know about as much on that as you do. What I do know is that there is probably something that we have yet to learn in terms of creation and we are far from knowing the truth.
So when you claimed that the beaver could not have evolved and that he was designed and that was a fact you was not only assuming you were being dishonest.


Evolution shows the path that produced the beaver from the fossil record, observations and DNA. So you don’t know as much about it as I do and certainly not as much as science.


So what, get on with it, I never claimed to have all the answers.
Well you certainly didn’t have the answers when it came to providing an example of 'in the wild' and if you cannot supply it you can’t use it. In the wild has gone.

You have also admitted that we have a relationship with all life on this planet as you claimed if I could show you one, just one you would accept it for all. You wrote we had a relationship 150 years ago with the wolf. You can no longer make the claim that we do not have a relationship with all life on this planet.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 407  408  409    411  412  413 >>

log in

join