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: 411
31
<< 408  409  410    412  413  414 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





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
Ya the problem is that doesn't meet the criteria for a natural relationship. In this example you could say that anything could have a relathionship with anything because of intervention. Natural would mean not forced, and especially not involving the manipulation from man. Simply moving them to another location is a form of intervention and manipulation.




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


1) You have ZERO evidence for intervention


2) Man = natural, animals = natural, man moving animals = natural

3) Some ants move lice to farm them...that's natural...and no different than us moving animals.

In short: As always, your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
No you didn't, it was very clear that we no longer have a relationship with them. What I would say is that we never did, and it was all just a guess to begin with. Either way , you lied because you claimed we do now as in present tense.

So you didn't win this turn.




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.
I sure did and she said that those people living in the jungle are not civilized.




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
I wasn't admitting to anything, I was being sarcastic and using Colin logic to explain how you probably see us having a relationship.




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
And even though I have adapted these changes to help you understand, you still have a problem.




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?
If I was Colin I would say yes there is, just to be argumentative, but no, I realize its just a metaphor.




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.
Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.


Again here is a quick check on the word unnatural...
un·nat·u·ral/ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: 1.Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial.
Synonyms: abnormal - artificial - factitious - affected

Now check out a quick check of natural...
nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

Notice that second part where it says not made or caused by humankind.

I would hold this one as the more accurate to the understanding.




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
Not at all, you see had he of evolved into what he is today, we would not ony see new va



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Variations sprouting in all directions with lingering tales of the previous build. But we would also have a variation of previos builds which we are also lacking.

So there is not proof coming or going that he evolved.

Your also denying the possibility that he would have wanted to evolve into a more mean tree eating maching which has also not happened. The fact is, nothing has happend. There are no subspecies.




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
No Colin I wasn't agreeing with you I was just quoting your source because thats what it said. And YOUR source proved that YOU WERE lying in your claims that we have a current relathioship with wolves. According to your source that hasn't existed in over 150 years.
edit on 8-6-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Cherry picking definitions are we today tooth?


Here's the full definition of "natural": NATURAL

Read it to find out why you're wrong.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





1) You have ZERO evidence for intervention
Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.




2) Man = natural, animals = natural, man moving animals = natural
Ok I understand that you have your OWN definition of the word, I get it, but according to the definition I found, your WRONG. I just shared this too...
So here it is again.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

2) Man = natural, animals = natural, man moving animals = natural




3) Some ants move lice to farm them...that's natural...and no different than us moving animals.

Ants are not human, so according to the definition of natural, they all qualify to remain in the natural term.




In short: As always, your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense


Well if your making up your own terms, and they are in conflict with the existing terms, no wonder.
edit on 8-6-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well there is still a part of it in section 10.

a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Now Colin, I want you to take a close look at this definition...

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

You have to just ask yourself why would we have a definition that seperates us from everything else on this planet, especially when your sure we evolved on this planet. I mean after all this is our home right? The fact is Colin, I have been right all this time in telling you that earth is NOT our home. This definition is a classic example of how scientists have recognized that we don't fit in on this planet, but they havne't been smart enough to figure out why.

I'm telling you why, we were placed here. The facts we live with every day prove it, the bible proves it, and now our very own definition proves it as well. We are not natural to this planet and this proves it.

But this also means something else, we obviously couldn't have evolved here as you maintain. It's just not an option. Besides, if we did evolve, like I'm sure you will maintain, we must have really sucked at it because we don't even fit in, and its so obvious that we have sepearated ourselves by definition.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No you didn't, it was very clear that we no longer have a relationship with them. What I would say is that we never did, and it was all just a guess to begin with.
That is not what you wrote in your last post:


but obviously from that article, we haven't had one for 150 years.
Your words. Even by your beliefs, blinded by bias that's a relationship and the only one I needed to get you to accept. You did. Job done.



I sure did and she said that those people living in the jungle are not civilized.
Then your friend is just as ignorant as you. The Bushmen consider themselves very civilised. Civilised or not they are humans and they live in all the jungles of this world.

When you wrote what constitutes 'in the wild' you said uninhabited. The jungles of this world fail your requirement as they are ALL inhabited. You do not take losing very well do you
But you have lost all the same because of you are unable to show a valid example. Allowing you any more chances than you have already had is excessive and now redundant.



I wasn't admitting to anything, I was being sarcastic and using Colin logic to explain how you probably see us having a relationship.
Let's just say I warned you that you are very poor at being sarcastic.

Like I wrote in what you are replying to. You have already agreed we have had a relationship with the wolf 150 years ago. Despite the fact I have shown you it is alive and well today via the Dog that is all I needed you to agree too. One relationship was what you asked for. One relationship that you accepted was what you got. Get over it. Move on.



And even though I have adapted these changes to help you understand, you still have a problem.
One quick check back to your very first posts shows that infantile posts are what you do. Fail.



Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.
It seems to get an answer you I have to push you hard. The counter has now been started. I asked you to put 'unnatural way' into context with regards to planting seeds. Answer that.

To help you out: Context

the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:

BTW Your neighbour has actually destroyed your stance as she thinks Bushmen are a natural occurrence. Bushmen are human beings. And are by her words relayed by you. NATURAL
edit on 8-6-2012 by colin42 because: Neighbours comments



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Variations sprouting in all directions with lingering tales of the previous build. But we would also have a variation of previos builds which we are also lacking.

So there is not proof coming or going that he evolved.

Your also denying the possibility that he would have wanted to evolve into a more mean tree eating maching which has also not happened. The fact is, nothing has happend. There are no subspecies.
Remember that definition of putting things into context. Read it again and then resubmit the above as it makes no sense at all.



No Colin I wasn't agreeing with you I was just quoting your source because thats what it said. And YOUR source proved that YOU WERE lying in your claims that we have a current relathioship with wolves. According to your source that hasn't existed in over 150 years.
No comment. Job already done.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Now Colin, I want you to take a close look at this definition...

nat•u•ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".
You have been posting here long enough to know that any source of information from outside this thread should be linked too to enable the reader to verify that source.


You have to just ask yourself why would we have a definition that seperates us from everything else on this planet, especially when your sure we evolved on this planet.
It's called context. You maintain everything we do is not natural. In your definition it says: 'keep walking—just act natural'. Given as an example of use. A human walked. Movement caused by man so how can 'not made or caused by humankind' be correct? Because you have taken this out of context and you have done so because above all you must try to justify your nonsense as long as it does not take any effort on your part.


This definition is a classic example of how scientists have recognized that we don't fit in on this planet, but they havne't been smart enough to figure out why.
It only means that to you and you alone. Where does it shows in that definition that man is not natural and does belong on this planet. Such information would definitely be included in a definition of 'Natural'. Show the link to your source and not what you think you can spin to aid your mad claims.

It is a definition not the bible. The information that defines is ALL included and not open to your wild claims of what it implies and what you wish to cherry pick from.


I'm telling you why, we were placed here. The facts we live with every day prove it, the bible proves it, and now our very own definition proves it as well. We are not natural to this planet and this proves it.
Ah the ranting of a desperate man. Your conclusion based on anything but the definition is a shining example of how you come to all your unfounded, insane conclusions.


Your neighbour has actually destroyed your stance as she thinks Bushmen are a natural occurrence. Bushmen are human beings. And are by her words relayed by you. NATURAL

edit on 8-6-2012 by colin42 because: neighbour again



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No you didn't, it was very clear that we no longer have a relationship with them. What I would say is that we never did, and it was all just a guess to begin with.

That is not what you wrote in your last post:
Again, I was only quoting your source.




but obviously from that article, we haven't had one for 150 years.

Your words. Even by your beliefs, blinded by bias that's a relationship and the only one I needed to get you to accept. You did. Job done.
I never said I accepted it, I was only quoting your source, but good job in trying.




I sure did and she said that those people living in the jungle are not civilized.

Then your friend is just as ignorant as you. The Bushmen consider themselves very civilised. Civilised or not they are humans and they live in all the jungles of this world.

When you wrote what constitutes 'in the wild' you said uninhabited. The jungles of this world fail your requirement as they are ALL inhabited. You do not take losing very well do you But you have lost all the same because of you are unable to show a valid example. Allowing you any more chances than you have already had is excessive and now redundant.
Well I'm going to stick with the google definition that clearly states not made or caused by human kind.




I wasn't admitting to anything, I was being sarcastic and using Colin logic to explain how you probably see us having a relationship.

Let's just say I warned you that you are very poor at being sarcastic.

Like I wrote in what you are replying to. You have already agreed we have had a relationship with the wolf 150 years ago. Despite the fact I have shown you it is alive and well today via the Dog that is all I needed you to agree too. One relationship was what you asked for. One relationship that you accepted was what you got. Get over it. Move on
I never agreed, I was only quoting your source. When did I say I agree with your source? All I said was he claimed there has not been a relatioship for the recent 150 years.

So you lost again, get used to it, get over it and move on.




And even though I have adapted these changes to help you understand, you still have a problem.

One quick check back to your very first posts shows that infantile posts are what you do. Fail.
Well I am trying my best to help you understand.




Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.

It seems to get an answer you I have to push you hard. The counter has now been started. I asked you to put 'unnatural way' into context with regards to planting seeds. Answer that.

To help you out: Context
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:


Real simple, as per the google definition of natural, it should not be made or caused by humankind in order to be natural. It's as simple as that. I think the definition is dead on.




Variations sprouting in all directions with lingering tales of the previous build. But we would also have a variation of previos builds which we are also lacking.

So there is not proof coming or going that he evolved.

Your also denying the possibility that he would have wanted to evolve into a more mean tree eating maching which has also not happened. The fact is, nothing has happend. There are no subspecies.

Remember that definition of putting things into context. Read it again and then resubmit the above as it makes no sense at all.
There is no before and no after subspecies. All we have is the beaver with no connections. It's as though he just popped into existence.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Whilst on the subject of behaviour. Please stop combinig seperate posts into one. It can be viewed as you muddying the water to make refering back very difficult. Hiding the points you have avoided. Wiping out the tracks the post followed.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Now Colin, I want you to take a close look at this definition...

nat•u•ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

You have been posting here long enough to know that any source of information from outside this thread should be linked too to enable the reader to verify that source.


www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=HUnST7eyFKPN6QGX3NCzAw&sqi=2&ved=0CGMQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=55f1dbe 328002a08&biw=1202&bih=584




You have to just ask yourself why would we have a definition that seperates us from everything else on this planet, especially when your sure we evolved on this planet.

It's called context. You maintain everything we do is not natural. In your definition it says: 'keep walking—just act natural'. Given as an example of use. A human walked. Movement caused by man so how can 'not made or caused by humankind' be correct? Because you have taken this out of context and you have done so because above all you must try to justify your nonsense as long as it does not take any effort on your part.
I don't have to maintain anything, I'm simply going by the definition.




This definition is a classic example of how scientists have recognized that we don't fit in on this planet, but they havne't been smart enough to figure out why.

It only means that to you and you alone. Where does it shows in that definition that man is not natural and does belong on this planet. Such information would definitely be included in a definition of 'Natural'. Show the link to your source and not what you think you can spin to aid your mad claims.

It is a definition not the bible. The information that defines is ALL included and not open to your wild claims of what it implies and what you wish to cherry pick from.
You have to learn how to read between the lines Colin. If nothing we do is considered natural and we are not considered natural to this planet, it doesn't take a genius to know what that means.




I'm telling you why, we were placed here. The facts we live with every day prove it, the bible proves it, and now our very own definition proves it as well. We are not natural to this planet and this proves it.

Ah the ranting of a desperate man. Your conclusion based on anything but the definition is a shining example of how you come to all your unfounded, insane conclusions.
Or you can believe we evolved to purposly not fit in I guess. But isn't that a contradiction. I thought that to evolve would mean we did actually fit in.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Again, I was only quoting your source.
Here is how you quote a source: Man and Wolf

Wolves and man have had the longest harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship of any two species in the history of the Earth.

Only in the last 150 years have men and wolves become adversaries, when the United States put forth a heroic effort to eradicate the wolf, but failed. Just in the last 25 years has man realized the value of that long-lost harmonious relationship, and is now restoring the wolf to regions where it once thrived.
It says that relationship changed and we became adversaries. That is also a relationship. No matter how you spin it. You lost. Get over it and move on. This is a redundant topic since your defeat.



Real simple, as per the google definition of natural, it should not be made or caused by humankind in order to be natural. It's as simple as that. I think the definition is dead on.
I only have your word for that as you did not provide the source. I don’t trust your word.
but let's examine what your neighbour said:


Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.
Your neighbour appears to dispute your claim that humans are not natural. Bushmen being humans and now according to her are a natural occurrence. Thank your neighbour for me


Back to business: I asked you to put 'unnatural way' into context with regards to planting seeds. Answer that.


There is no before and no after subspecies. All we have is the beaver with no connections. It's as though he just popped into existence.
Catoridae

The family Castoridae contains the two living species of beaver and their fossil relatives. This was once a highly diverse group of rodents, but is now restricted to a single genus, Castor.
You appear to be wrong. Again.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Once again you have linked to google search front page.



I don't have to maintain anything, I'm simply going by the definition.
A cherry picked part of the definition you have not linked too. Yeah right.



You have to learn how to read between the lines Colin. If nothing we do is considered natural and we are not considered natural to this planet, it doesn't take a genius to know what that means.
One of your biggest problems. Reading between the lines instead of reading the lines. You consider nothing we do is natural. Not even your neighbour agrees with you.



Or you can believe we evolved to purposly not fit in I guess. But isn't that a contradiction. I thought that to evolve would mean we did actually fit in.
411 pages and you still maintain your ignorance regarding Evolution: Astounding. Evolution describes a process. Small changes over time selected for by the environment.

There is no other purpose than to pass on our genes and any advantages they may contain that aids us to do so.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.
This is a clear example of you cherry picking the information you read Bible as an historic document

There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BC and later) composition
So there are oposing views on this even within the religous scholars.

The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[45][
So again at odds with your statement.

So it appears to be far from a clear historical document that you claim it to be. Seems to be full of hypothesis and assumptions to me.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





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
Ya the problem is that doesn't meet the criteria for a natural relationship. In this example you could say that anything could have a relathionship with anything because of intervention. Natural would mean not forced, and especially not involving the manipulation from man. Simply moving them to another location is a form of intervention and manipulation.

Ya the problem is you have no clue what natural relationships are.
Regardless of your forced ideas man is a part of nature, so whatever spin you try to put on it only outlines your ignorance of the natural world.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Again, I was only quoting your source.

Here is how you quote a source: Man and Wolf
Wolves and man have had the longest harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship of any two species in the history of the Earth.

Only in the last 150 years have men and wolves become adversaries, when the United States put forth a heroic effort to eradicate the wolf, but failed. Just in the last 25 years has man realized the value of that long-lost harmonious relationship, and is now restoring the wolf to regions where it once thrived
The writer obviously has convoluded ideas here. How is it that we supposedly had this excellent relationship with them, then the next thing you know, we are trying to eradicate them? It's obvious we never had the relationship with them that we thought we did. In other words we never did have a good relationship with them.

Your article is a good example of someone sticking there own foot in there mouth. It remindes me of the wiki on the 10% brain myth, its the same thing. Either way you slice it, we don't have that good relationship with them, and I believe we never did over 150 years ago.




It says that relationship changed and we became adversaries. That is also a relationship. No matter how you spin it. You lost. Get over it and move on. This is a redundant topic since your defeat.
Well I never claimed that being adversaries is a relationship as well. I was only looking at beneficial ones that would count, I thought I had cleared that up a long time ago. I'm not accepting semantics here to excuse your inability to find a relationship.




Well my neighbors take on this is it would be when there are no civilized people involved. So your bushmen that live in the jungle could be considered natural occurances. At least according to her.

Your neighbour appears to dispute your claim that humans are not natural. Bushmen being humans and now according to her are a natural occurrence. Thank your neighbour for me
But only if they are civilized.




Back to business: I asked you to put 'unnatural way' into context with regards to planting seeds. Answer that.
No and there are a lot of things that don't come up with unnatural in front of them, but are considered to be because they are caused or made by human hands. It's just a prerequisite that you have to program in your mind. That google definition is dead on by saying that anything human caused or human made is not natural.




Catoridae
The family Castoridae contains the two living species of beaver and their fossil relatives. This was once a highly diverse group of rodents, but is now restricted to a single genus, Castor
Again that only applies in your favor if you believe in evolution to begin with, which I don't.

It could have just as easily of been creation that created those ties. If you didn't have that family, you would have just jumped over to the rat and made claims that was the next one in line that proves a connection.




Once again you have linked to google search front page.
I don't have to maintain anything, I'm simply going by the definition.
A cherry picked part of the definition you have not linked too. Yeah right.


Try this one...
www.google.com...,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1202&bih=584&wrapid=tlif133926473487010&um=1&ie=UTF-8& sa=N&tab=iw&ei=kZLTT93RM6iE2QWO3Ki5Dw#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=natural+definition&oq=natural+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-e1g3&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0i9j0l3.5328.7 157.1.7469.11.6.0.1.1.0.672.2156.0j1j0j1j1j2.5.0...0.0.xd8ZRtSMRgY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3f1469f1e9441b37&biw=1202&bih=584




You have to learn how to read between the lines Colin. If nothing we do is considered natural and we are not considered natural to this planet, it doesn't take a genius to know what that means.

One of your biggest problems. Reading between the lines instead of reading the lines. You consider nothing we do is natural. Not even your neighbour agrees with you.
Not at all, she agreed with me, but only if they are civilized.




Or you can believe we evolved to purposly not fit in I guess. But isn't that a contradiction. I thought that to evolve would mean we did actually fit in.

411 pages and you still maintain your ignorance regarding Evolution: Astounding. Evolution describes a process. Small changes over time selected for by the environment.

There is no other purpose than to pass on our genes and any advantages they may contain that aids us to do so.
Well I thought evolution also agreed with survival of the fittest. All I"m saying is that we are not well equipped to survive on this planet.




Text



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.

This is a clear example of you cherry picking the information you read Bible as an historic document
There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BC and later) composition
So there are oposing views on this even within the religous scholars.
The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[45][
So again at odds with your statement.

So it appears to be far from a clear historical document that you claim it to be. Seems to be full of hypothesis and assumptions to me
I never said all of the bible was clear. What I said was its clear that we aren't from here. Again you cherry picked parts that didn't apply to what I was talking about, which seems to be all you do.




top topics



 
31
<< 408  409  410    412  413  414 >>

log in

join