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.
Excuse me, your take on this was we were meant to make tools to allow us to do anything. In other words no direction.
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.
Hey your the one that never makes any sense, you write in tounges.
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.
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.
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
And making is an effort to adapt, meaning that evolution has failed us. We wouldn't have to adapt had we of evolved.
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.
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
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.
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.'
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.
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' ?
Well that was the whole point, its anything but simple.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
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.
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
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.
Thats fine and dandy, I'm not interested in the things we go to school for that make us look smarter,
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.
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.
now I know you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid answering my point. Here it is again.
It would have had more meaning had you of posted the link to begin with.
Read that then respond to the Heading from the original link 'Relationship with Humans'.
Wolves and man have had the longest harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship of any two species in the history of the Earth.
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.
A jungle is in the wild. Forrest is in the wild. Any place where man does not seriously occupy.
Apart from your point being a waste of space the part above made me laugh. Typical you. Classic.
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.
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.
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.
Where is the link to explain 'forced seeding'? If you believe what you have written above is coherent logic then you have failed again.
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.
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.
Well that was the whole point, its anything but simple.
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.
Ya there is no way he evolved or shape shifted into being the dam builder that he is.
You can’t even spell evolution let alone show it wrong with another nonsense based rant. Classic
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.
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.
I wanted your expert opinion since supernatural powers couldn't possibly exist.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
Well uninhabited by man anyhow.
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.
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.
Seriously inhabbited (Please define 'seriously inhabited'), is you moving the goalposts because again your point failed.
It's the same thing, an area where man doesn't inhabit or rarely inhabits.
Mine has not. Man inhabits every jungle on this planet. You still have not given me an example of in the wild.
It's clear that your wrong, so you'll just have to go on.
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
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?
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, I'm just calling it forced because its not natural. Are there some steps you can give that prove it to be natural?
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.
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.
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.
I an extremely complex unnatural way, you are correct. I'm looking for natural events.
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 t
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.
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.
And you can't address my reply.
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
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.
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
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's clear that your wrong, so you'll just have to go on.
Man's relationship with the car
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?
So again you have misused the English language and came up with another meaningless term to hide behind.
Again, I'm just calling it forced because its not natural. Are there some steps you can give that prove it to be natural?
Well here is your undefined term again. Unnatural way
I an extremely complex unnatural way, you are correct. I'm looking for natural events.
So explain why a man planting a seed is an 'unnatural way'. Please use English.
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 what was the beaver designed by: A supernatural force or a natural process described by Evolution?
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.
Sorry but how many points and questions have you left unaddressed over just the last five pages?
And you can't address my reply.
The questions and points I referred to were the ones I have to constantly remind you of and you avoid.
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.
And what exactly is that? The only thing that even looks plausable is relation through association of DNA, and thats it.
Actually, all the evidence suggests exactly the opposite of what you just wrote
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
Wrong again Colin, it was a baby language to help you absorb terms that you either don't want to or cant understand.
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
Because its not taking place at the hands of mother nature.
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.
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.
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?
So what, get on with it, I never claimed to have all the answers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wrong again Colin, it was a baby language to help you absorb terms that you either don't want to or cant understand.
You do know that there is no such person as 'Mother Nature' don’t you?
Because its not taking place at the hands of mother nature.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what, get on with it, I never claimed to have all the answers.