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: 414
31
<< 411  412  413    415  416  417 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I still say its very odd how our ancestors bring nothing to the table as far as things we share with them.

If 'they' are our ancestors then 'they' brought us to the table. Who are you referring to as 'they'?
I'm referring to our supposed relatives.




At best you can say they were hunter gathers, but not only is there no proof of that, but apes have no proof of doing that either. We share nothing with our supposed ancestors.

Nope. We have overwhelming evidence that we were once a hunter gatherer species. Some of us still are. Have I mentioned the Bushmen?

Chimps have been filmed actively hunting for food, meat. So the Chimp lifestyle as a hunter gatherer is fully documented so you fail here as well.

Apes is a big group be more specific.
The problem is they never made a lifestyle out of it. So it doesn't apply. You have this tendancy of taking a very small and isolated example of something not very well known and claiming that it shaped a new species.




If they really were our ancestors, we would share so much with them, including but not limited to some communication, and probably some lifestyles as well.

Are you referring to our common ancestor or other apes?
Either one, it doesn't matter, we share almost nothing with them.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



This is called grammar. No where in there does it mention governing English.
Oh dear. You really find information hard to assimilate. English Grammar

English grammar is the body of rules that describe the structure of expressions in the English language.
. Got it yet? I doubt it.


Thats what I'm saying.
Nope. What you are saying is:


Anyhow evolution, at least in the way its being conveyed here, is a form of creation in case you have missed that. The creation of new life, through any means what so ever, is still creation.
Evolution has nothing to say about creation. End of.


And though this event, supposedly new species can be created.
I refer you back to all the information contained in this 413 pages you chose to ignore originally.


If your maintaining that it evolved, then I'm sticking to it also being created. That species either came into existence from a creator, or from evolution, either way, it was created somehow.
'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



Oh give me a break, I'm not backing her definition. You have to remember that she has other beliefs that don't match mine.

Dont ask me to defend her understanding, I don't agree with it.
You posted it in support. Now you find you have tripped up again you change the goalposts. The trouble is you have again not given a response to the points made. You have lost the use of natural, unnatural and not natural when referring to humans. Move on.



Ok I'm going to post this again, for the last time, so if you miss it, to bad for you.
I see you can suddenly supply links again just as suddenly as you lost the ability previously. Unfortunately it came too late. You lost the point by refusal to address my argument after excessive chances were given. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



So if I have seriously lost the last 400 pages, why have you decided to engage in an ongoing discussion with me?
'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I'm referring to our supposed relatives.
And they would be?


The problem is they never made a lifestyle out of it. So it doesn't apply.
Who are 'they'? Get a grip man.



You have this tendancy of taking a very small and isolated example of something not very well known and claiming that it shaped a new species.
Better than your tendency of never giving a coherent reply to anything.


Either one, it doesn't matter, we share almost nothing with them.
Then I refer you back to these 414 pages that show you have been wrong and still are.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





This is called grammar. No where in there does it mention governing English.

Oh dear. You really find information hard to assimilate. English Grammar
English grammar is the body of rules that describe the structure of expressions in the English language.
. Got it yet? I doubt it.
When are you going to share something about governing English?




Anyhow evolution, at least in the way its being conveyed here, is a form of creation in case you have missed that. The creation of new life, through any means what so ever, is still creation.

Evolution has nothing to say about creation. End of.
Well of course it does, a new species emerging is just another form of creation.

Are you seriously that blind?

There is no End of, it is still a form of creation. It's just that the whole idea and the way that it works is totally different. Your probably totally against the whole idea of the creation theory but there is still some of that involved in the evolution theory.




And though this event, supposedly new species can be created.

I refer you back to all the information contained in this 413 pages you chose to ignore originally
Evolution is just another form of creation, except that in this case, evolution is doing all the designing.




Oh give me a break, I'm not backing her definition. You have to remember that she has other beliefs that don't match mine.

Dont ask me to defend her understanding, I don't agree with it.

You posted it in support. Now you find you have tripped up again you change the goalposts. The trouble is you have again not given a response to the points made. You have lost the use of natural, unnatural and not natural when referring to humans. Move on
Just because my neighbor has her own ideas, does not mean that I moved my goal posts.
'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.




Ok I'm going to post this again, for the last time, so if you miss it, to bad for you.

I see you can suddenly supply links again just as suddenly as you lost the ability previously. Unfortunately it came too late. You lost the point by refusal to address my argument after excessive chances were given. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
What do you mean I lost it from excessive chances, You lost back on my first post about the subject.




So if I have seriously lost the last 400 pages, why have you decided to engage in an ongoing discussion with me?

'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
You have abused your generic catch all phrase to much now, therefore I no longer accept it as valid.
Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I'm referring to our supposed relatives.

And they would be?
Our ancestors that we supposedly evolved from.




You have this tendancy of taking a very small and isolated example of something not very well known and claiming that it shaped a new species.

Better than your tendency of never giving a coherent reply to anything
Well learn to speak English better.




Either one, it doesn't matter, we share almost nothing with them.

Then I refer you back to these 414 pages that show you have been wrong and still are.
You have never submitted anything proving that we share anything with our ancestors.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



When are you going to share something about governing English?
Already have. It's a shame your low level of education appears to prevent you understanding the written word. Your loss again but don’t start worrying about it now.

FYI Language

Spoken and signed languages contain a phonological system that governs how sounds or visual symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are used to form phrases and utterances. Written languages use visual symbols to represent the sounds of the spoken languages, but they still require syntactic rules that govern the production of meaning from sequences of words.
I doubt you will understand.


Well of course it does, a new species emerging is just another form of creation.
Jeezus wept when are you going to learn the most basic things that evolution is based on. Evolution is nothing. NOTHING to do with creation in anyway. Species evolve, and are always evolving that's it. 413 pages and you dont have a clue. you should be ashamed. No one expects you to accept evolution but you should by now understand the basics.



Are you seriously that blind?
you take the cake dude.



There is no End of, it is still a form of creation. It's just that the whole idea and the way that it works is totally different.
Then it is not evolution.
Another classic toothism



Your probably totally against the whole idea of the creation theory but there is still some of that involved in the evolution theory.
So just once. Just once. Once in 413 pages please supply that argument and be prepared to answer questions not one line dismissals.


Evolution is just another form of creation, except that in this case, evolution is doing all the designing
See above and refer back. You should have took notice the 1st, 2nd, 3rd ...................... nth time. I am not dancing to your tune again.


Just because my neighbor has her own ideas, does not mean that I moved my goal posts.
Your neighbour did not post here, you did. You lost get over it.


What do you mean I lost it from excessive chances, You lost back on my first post about the subject.
Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.


You have abused your generic catch all phrase to much now, therefore I no longer accept it as valid.
Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.


edit on 11-6-2012 by colin42 because: Another classic toothism


edit on 11-6-2012 by colin42 because: FYI Language



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Our ancestors that we supposedly evolved from.
How many times do you need asking even for clarity on this? Which ancestors are you referring too? be specific.



Well learn to speak English better.
Why, it will be wasted on you. I recall your claim to have made up your own baby language. The only thing you have ever shown supporting evidence for
BTW that should read 'Well learn to speak better English'


You have never submitted anything proving that we share anything with our ancestors.
Then I refer you back to these 414 pages that show you have been wrong and still are.
edit on 11-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





When are you going to share something about governing English?

Already have. It's a shame your low level of education appears to prevent you understanding the written word. Your loss again but don’t start worrying about it now.
FYI Language
Spoken and signed languages contain a phonological system that governs how sounds or visual symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are used to form phrases and utterances. Written languages use visual symbols to represent the sounds of the spoken languages, but they still require syntactic rules that govern the production of meaning from sequences of words.
I doubt you will understand.
I understand clearly that your unable or unwilling to produce anything that proves "Governing English" to exist.




Well of course it does, a new species emerging is just another form of creation.

Jeezus wept when are you going to learn the most basic things that evolution is based on. Evolution is nothing. NOTHING to do with creation in anyway. Species evolve, and are always evolving that's it. 413 pages and you dont have a clue. you should be ashamed. No one expects you to accept evolution but you should by now understand the basics.
If evoltuion has the ability to render new species, which correct me if I'm wrong, you have been saying all along, then that in itself is a form of creation.

Just because it doesn't match with the well known understanding of god created us, does not mean its not a form of creation.




Are you seriously that blind?

you take the cake dude.


There is no End of, it is still a form of creation. It's just that the whole idea and the way that it works is totally different.

Then it is not evolution. Another classic toothism
Anything that makes new species, is a form of creation, no matter how you slice it.
Are you seriously that blind?
you take the cake dude.
There is no End of, it is still a form of creation. It's just that the whole idea and the way that it works is totally different.
Then it is not evolution. Another classic toothism

cre·a·tion/krēˈāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of bringing something into existence: "job creation".
2.A thing made or invented, esp. something showing artistic talent.
Synonyms: making - formation - creature

Dont take my word for it. Evoltuion claims to bring new species into existence through the evolutionairy process, that is still creation.




Your probably totally against the whole idea of the creation theory but there is still some of that involved in the evolution theory.

So just once. Just once. Once in 413 pages please supply that argument and be prepared to answer questions not one line dismissals.


Evolution is just another form of creation, except that in this case, evolution is doing all the designing

See above and refer back. You should have took notice the 1st, 2nd, 3rd ...................... nth time. I am not dancing to your tune again.


Just because my neighbor has her own ideas, does not mean that I moved my goal posts.

Your neighbour did not post here, you did. You lost get over it.
I didn't lose anything from my neighbors input, you just latch on to anything that aids in the direction of your belief is all.




What do you mean I lost it from excessive chances, You lost back on my first post about the subject.

Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.


You have abused your generic catch all phrase to much now, therefore I no longer accept it as valid.

Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Our ancestors that we supposedly evolved from.

How many times do you need asking even for clarity on this? Which ancestors are you referring too? be specific.
Apes, what others are there?




Well learn to speak English better.

Why, it will be wasted on you. I recall your claim to have made up your own baby language. The only thing you have ever shown supporting evidence for BTW that should read 'Well learn to speak better English'
Only to communicate better with you.




You have never submitted anything proving that we share anything with our ancestors.

Then I refer you back to these 414 pages that show you have been wrong and still are.
Your silence and redirection is more proof.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I understand clearly that your unable or unwilling to produce anything that proves "Governing English" to exist.
Another case of you not being able to read. Another example of an epic failure for you again. Keep trying



If evoltuion has the ability to render new species, which correct me if I'm wrong, you have been saying all along, then that in itself is a form of creation.
Tut, tut tut. Shameful display of ignorance despite you taking part in at least 350 pages of this thread.

Animals evolve. We categorise them into species but in reality we are all just the same organism that has evolved to exploit different niches. So no; Nothing was created it evolved.


Just because it doesn't match with the well known understanding of god created us, does not mean its not a form of creation.
Evolution does not describe the creation of anything. Evolution explains the process that produces the diversity we see today. Let's say god/alien/chemical reaction/big bang/what ever created life. A simple one celled organism that was able to multiply is all that is needed.

Since that original act of creation that evolution does not and cannot explain. Not one. I repeat not one more creature needs to be created. The diversity we see today is explained by the theory of evolution. Every species you see has evolved from that first act of creation. Until you can understand that simple concept then you will never understand evolution or what is describes.

If you continue to claim evolution describes the creation of anything and after showing the inability/refusal to accept what evolution at its most basic describes. (Accept not sign up to) then I see no reason for your continued display of ignorance on this thread.


Anything that makes new species, is a form of creation, no matter how you slice it.
Nothing MAKES a new species. An organism we classify as a certain species has evolved to the point it is at now and continues to evolve into the future.


cre•a•tion/krēˈāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of bringing something into existence:
Again you show you have no understanding of the things you read. Yes your quote above describes the action of creation. Evolution explains that the organism you say has been created has evolved from its predecessor. IE it has made small changes over time, selected for by the environment. It was not an act of creation.

Your loose, lazy use of language coupled with a total misunderstanding of the information you read using bias and ignorance as your yard stick shines like a beacon in every post you make.


A thing made or invented, esp. something showing artistic talent.
Context is everything. Creating a work of art is a total different use of the word creation than when it is used to describe the creation of life.


Dont take my word for it. Evoltuion claims to bring new species into existence through the evolutionairy process, that is still creation.
I definitely won’t take your word for it. Provide the supporting evidence for you claim. Provide links as your backup. (a non reply results in you loosing the point).


I didn't lose anything from my neighbors input, you just latch on to anything that aids in the direction of your belief is all.
You lost. That results in: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Apes, what others are there?
And yet again you need to be told for the umpteenth time. We share a common ancestor with all other primates. 413 pages and you still write that.
They are not our Ancestors


Only to communicate better with you.
I think you have more than demonstrated it is the natural level of your understanding which trust me is not that high.


Your silence and redirection is more proof.
And your silence and avoidance resulted in: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Apes, what others are there?


You can't be that ignorant or are you just trying to be annoying.
Just a page ago I linked a direct decedent the Denisovan Entire Genome Decoded.

Whats your problem? your constantly trying to misdirect and misinterpret the information spoon fed to you for hundreds of pages.
Your not being clever, your not being cute, don't you realize you have published this dis-info for people to read for god knows long?
Have you no dignity.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Missing Trans-types, where are your crossovers?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luminaught
Missing Trans-types, where are your crossovers?


Posted as early as page 6.
You have 414 pages of some good info that answers this question. Get cracken!



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I understand clearly that your unable or unwilling to produce anything that proves "Governing English" to exist.

Another case of you not being able to read. Another example of an epic failure for you again. Keep trying
You made the claim, you should be able to define it.

You lost from not being able to produce it, get over it and move on.




If evoltuion has the ability to render new species, which correct me if I'm wrong, you have been saying all along, then that in itself is a form of creation.

Tut, tut tut. Shameful display of ignorance despite you taking part in at least 350 pages of this thread.

Animals evolve. We categorise them into species but in reality we are all just the same organism that has evolved to exploit different niches. So no; Nothing was created it evolved.
But in the overall picture, evoltuion can create.




Just because it doesn't match with the well known understanding of god created us, does not mean its not a form of creation.

Evolution does not describe the creation of anything.
If evoltuion is able to produce new species, yes that is a form of creation, no matter how you slice it.




Evolution explains the process that produces the diversity we see today. Let's say god/alien/chemical reaction/big bang/what ever created life. A simple one celled organism that was able to multiply is all that is needed.
And that diversity is a proof of a plehtora of species being created. Just because you have personally accepted it as having nothing to do with the current notion of creation, does not mean that new species aren't being created. Either way you wrong Get over it and move on.




Since that original act of creation that evolution does not and cannot explain. Not one. I repeat not one more creature needs to be created. The diversity we see today is explained by the theory of evolution. Every species you see has evolved from that first act of creation. Until you can understand that simple concept then you will never understand evolution or what is describes.
Of course I understand, all it means is that many species were made from one, thats all.. They are still created. If its a new species either way you look at it, they are created.




If you continue to claim evolution describes the creation of anything and after showing the inability/refusal to accept what evolution at its most basic describes. (Accept not sign up to) then I see no reason for your continued display of ignorance on this thread.
Your the only one here displaying ignorance, anytime a new species comes up, a new species is created. It may not be at the hands of a creator that we commonly understand but its still a new species that has been created.




Anything that makes new species, is a form of creation, no matter how you slice it.

Nothing MAKES a new species. An organism we classify as a certain species has evolved to the point it is at now and continues to evolve into the future.
That doesn't make any sense as I'm not the same species as say a dog, so there had to be the creation of new species a few times in there to explain how we all came into existence.




cre•a•tion/krēˈāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of bringing something into existence:

Again you show you have no understanding of the things you read. Yes your quote above describes the action of creation. Evolution explains that the organism you say has been created has evolved from its predecessor. IE it has made small changes over time, selected for by the environment. It was not an act of creation.

Your loose, lazy use of language coupled with a total misunderstanding of the information you read using bias and ignorance as your yard stick shines like a beacon in every post you make.
So what your trying to say is that becuase it happens slowly over time, it doens't qualify to be labled as a creation. I wasn't aware that there were such boundries on the term. Again I refelct you back to the definition where it says nothing about the time constraints. You have taken the liberty of placing your own restrictions within the term creation.

I would like to see your proof of the definition showing that there are time constraints.




A thing made or invented, esp. something showing artistic talent.

Context is everything. Creating a work of art is a total different use of the word creation than when it is used to describe the creation of life
Thats only becuase your assuming there has to be a creator. But the definition doesn't say there has to be a creator, it could just as easily be evolution.




Dont take my word for it. Evoltuion claims to bring new species into existence through the evolutionairy process,



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Dont take my word for it. Evoltuion claims to bring new species into existence through the evolutionairy process, that is still creation.

I definitely won’t take your word for it. Provide the supporting evidence for you claim. Provide links as your backup. (a non reply results in you loosing the point).


I didn't lose anything from my neighbors input, you just latch on to anything that aids in the direction of your belief is all.

You lost. That results in: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
Just like how you lost the idea of evolution not qualifying to be a form of creation. You have nothing to back up your response which is why you are speechless about it. I would be money that your answer to this is going to be some lame response like Term invalid, or you refelct me back to the last 400 pages. Just the lamest excuses with no responses. I challenge you to honestly come up with a valid answer and actually try but more importantly be honest, be honest with the answer and actually try to give an answer instead of just deflecting the question.

Evolution qualifies as being a form of creation. It may not appear in the same manner as the traditional method we all assume, but none the less, its still a form of creation.




Apes, what others are there?

And yet again you need to be told for the umpteenth time. We share a common ancestor with all other primates. 413 pages and you still write that. They are not our Ancestors
All that does is place another species or several between us, to serve as a reason why we have never found that missing link.




Only to communicate better with you.

I think you have more than demonstrated it is the natural level of your understanding which trust me is not that high.
My level of understanding is high enough to know when something is BS. You don't have to be a genius to understand evoltuion.

You are also lacking something when your not able to clearly understand that evoltuion creates new species, and in that sense is a creator.




Your silence and redirection is more proof.

And your silence and avoidance resulted in: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment
Everytime you post that phrase I'm going to assume you couldn't come up with any better response, so everytime you use that I'm going to assume its just your way of telling me I'm correct and you have nothing better to respond with.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You made the claim, you should be able to define it.
One of the major differences between us. I posted the links and showed the supporting evidence and provided the argument but at least you have got the message.

You show no signs of entering debate. You lost by default.


But in the overall picture, evoltuion can create.
I see how this is going again.
Your refusal to even spell evolution correctly shows your insane hatred of a word that describes a process.

Everything else that followed was also not worthy of a reply either. Looks like you are fast running out of valid and acceptable arguments that have not been done to death and all ignored by you and addressed in your usual ignorant fashion. A one line, unsupported illogical dismissal.

Your call and I am more than happy to reply: You lost. That results in: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I challenge you to honestly come up with a valid answer and actually try but more importantly be honest, be honest with the answer and actually try to give an answer instead of just deflecting the question.
Could not have put it better myself. You first and this is your last chance.


Dont take my word for it. Evoltuion claims to bring new species into existence through the evolutionairy process, that is still creation.
I definitely won’t take your word for it. Provide the supporting evidence for you claim. Provide links as your backup. (a non reply results in you loosing the point).

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted. I has been answered many times before. I refer you back to the last 413 pages and wait for it ........................... Your 'terms/claims' are not valid on this thread. No comment.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You made the claim, you should be able to define it.

One of the major differences between us. I posted the links and showed the supporting evidence and provided the argument but at least you have got the message.

You show no signs of entering debate. You lost by default.
But your links say nothing about governed English. It appears to be a term you made up.

3 strikes man.




But in the overall picture, evoltuion can create.

I see how this is going again. Your refusal to even spell evolution correctly shows your insane hatred of a word that describes a process.

Everything else that followed was also not worthy of a reply either. Looks like you are fast running out of valid and acceptable arguments that have not been done to death and all ignored by you and addressed in your usual ignorant fashion. A one line, unsupported illogical dismissal.

Your call and I am more than happy to reply: You lost. That results in: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
Actually I was going to tell you the same thing since you ignored the question.




I challenge you to honestly come up with a valid answer and actually try but more importantly be honest, be honest with the answer and actually try to give an answer instead of just deflecting the question.

Could not have put it better myself. You first and this is your last chance.
Strike 3 again, wow, this time you didn't even try.




Dont take my word for it. Evoltuion claims to bring new species into existence through the evolutionairy process, that is still creation.

I definitely won’t take your word for it. Provide the supporting evidence for you claim. Provide links as your backup. (a non reply results in you loosing the point).

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted. I has been answered many times before. I refer you back to the last 413 pages and wait for it ........................... Your 'terms/claims' are not valid on this thread. No comment. [/quote Your 'terms/claims' are not valid on this thread. No comment

I'm sorry but I don't think anyone would accept the lack of input as a win all phrase.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Yet again you refuse to enter a debate. Yet again you had excessive chances given. Your replies are childishly redundant.

Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

Seems like your time is over.








 
31
<< 411  412  413    415  416  417 >>

log in

join