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: 421
31
<< 418  419  420    422  423  424 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Tooth, look what I made just for you: LINK

You're welcome!




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Not one link provided has said ADHD makes changes to anything, the changes are already there because not everybody has exactly the same sequence of nucleic acids on the particular locus on the particular chromosome that leads some to vary in their ADHD disposition. Every single individual varies in this respect. At times the variation leads to actual variation in behavior under certain conditions, and other times it doesn't have any impact.

"Evolutionists" can "claim" that this is evolution because it is, but that's because everything (in such contexts) is. Evolution is defined by the changes or lack thereof of alleles in a population. These changes occur because people with certain alleles either reproduce differentially, or randomly. I would say, unless ADHD in some way increases spermatoza motility, female fertility, or if the trait in and of itself is found to be an attractive quality by the opposite sex, the rate of change of ADHD alleles in a population is more or less random.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I would say, unless ADHD in some way increases spermatoza motility, female fertility, or if the trait in and of itself is found to be an attractive quality by the opposite sex, the rate of change of ADHD alleles in a population is more or less random.
Apologies, to avoid confusion, let me rephrase.

Unless the sequence of nucleic acids that influence one's ADHD dispositions also in some way increases...'''



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Too flyingfish: Yes I agree with your post about AA. To say it could not have happened is foolish. Just as foolish as it is to blindly believe it did happen.


I have always been nice to everyone on this thread. Just because I don't agree with their beliefs is not a reason to treat me the way I have been.
There is a difference between being nice and being disrespectful. Your one line dismissals are disrespectful. You have been treated more than fairly and given more than enough chances to join into a real debate so don’t pull out that old cherry.


Especially profilling, its just wrong and your a top offender of it.
Do you know what it even means? Asking you to supply evidence, links and supporting arguments for your claims is not profiling. Tiring of your circular arguments that show no signs of any improvement since your first post is not profiling. Pointing out the tactics you use to avoid discussion is also not profiling.


Sure I may have had some one liners but guarantee I'm doing most of the typing on this thread, go back and look.
Most if not all of your posts are avoidance of an issue raised. Your one line reply to my argument against man living inside a whale. 'You deliberately left out the supernatural' is just one of many examples but was the one that broke the camels back. You want to take part in this thread then you had best start debating in a correct and honest fashion. Failure to do so will receive from me the line: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment. Your choice.


Well maybe thats my fault for assuming your up to speed on things. Assuming that Aliens are advanced and do work with DNA, does that clear it up for you?
How does another poorly constructed opinion from you clear things up when talking about the diversity we see today? Despite me continually explaining what is required from you in regards to a debate. It is just another one line opinion. Dismissive of a vast topic, diversity.


I'm not just here to ask questions, I'm also here to see if anyone can prove evolution right, or intervention wrong. I'd be happy with either one at this point.
Here you are again picking what you will answer. Where is your response too: 'You should also be prepared to defend your claims with a reasoned and supported argument. You never have and wilfully avoid doing so'. And you are avoiding it again. Classic.


Well its a combination of sources...
Wrong again. You supply the argument. Links and quotes. It is not up to me to form your argument for you. Sheesh!


Yes it does, it states that our genes are carrying on ADHD to offspring.
Then quote directly from it because I don’t agree with your claim below:


As per the link I supplied, its clear that ADHD is changing DNA and there by passing on this gene to offspring.
and neither did the quote I supplied from your link. You cannot supply the quote because you know full well that the above is how you interpreted it to suit your claim which is dishonest.



A good source for fact finding about this is through speciation.
Yep a source you continue to deny with no reasoned argument.


Everything on this page is either under debate or listed as highly speculative.
What is different to the information you provided on ADHD where it states:

A great deal of research has been carried out on the genetic factors that may play a role in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Note it says MAY. In many other places it says similar things that you base your one line rejections on when you decide it does not support your unfounded claims.


Well its more like no is saying that it doesn't, and all changes are assumed to be by evoltuion.
Not only is this reply poorly constructed to the point of incoherent how does this random reply address my point?


Ya I don't work in a lab to be able to prove this, but you don't either so I don't know what to tell you.
Tell me your reasoned argument, supported by links and quotes from those links. How many more times do you need this explained? This is either gross avoidance or gross ignorance or a mixture of the two. None of which shows you in a good light.


I know they are counting this activity as evolution and its not.
So there is your opinion. Now provide the argument, supporting evidence with links and quotes.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





Not one link provided has said ADHD makes changes to anything,
That would be because I'm phrasing it wrong. Basically if someone is aflicted with the ADHD disease, it will have to appear in their DNA structure.




the changes are already there because not everybody has exactly the same sequence of nucleic acids on the particular locus on the particular chromosome that leads some to vary in their ADHD disposition.
That could depend on if its an autosomal gene or not. Either way, in order for someone to get ADHD we know that it either needs to be inherited, which is through DNA, or the person has to be exposed to unhealthy amounts of ciggerette smoke while in the womb.




Every single individual varies in this respect. At times the variation leads to actual variation in behavior under certain conditions, and other times it doesn't have any impact.
And see the problem here is its just do much in the learning stages, I would be money that evolutionitsts are seeing changes like ADHD appearing as a new change in DNA and considering that to be one example of evolution. The fact is they have no way to identify any of it, because our guidlines for such a theory are currently based on what we think we know to be normal DNA. The fact is there is no handbook that tells us what is acceptable and whats not, whats a change, and whats ADHD. I'm sure they have been able to think they have identified some things, but there is always that element of not knowing for sure.




"Evolutionists" can "claim" that this is evolution because it is, but that's because everything (in such contexts) is. Evolution is defined by the changes or lack thereof of alleles in a population. These changes occur because people with certain alleles either reproduce differentially, or randomly. I would say, unless ADHD in some way increases spermatoza motility, female fertility, or if the trait in and of itself is found to be an attractive quality by the opposite sex, the rate of change of ADHD alleles in a population is more or less random
Lets say a pregnant mother is smoking and inflicts ADHD on her new born, I seriously doubt even if it were passed on to another generation that it could be called evolution. It's as though your claiming that the mere ability to pass genes on is evolution.

Last I heard from someone on this thread about that subject was that anything that gets passed on, was no evolution, but other unexplainable circumstances would be. This is where evolution always appears to be more magic than any other definition. We can't see it, we cant identify it, we cant track it, we cant predict it, We can't direct it, it is by all standards magic.

I don't believe in magic, I think there are reasons for everything.




I would say, unless ADHD in some way increases spermatoza motility, female fertility, or if the trait in and of itself is found to be an attractive quality by the opposite sex, the rate of change of ADHD alleles in a population is more or less random.
Apologies, to avoid confusion, let me rephrase.

Unless the sequence of nucleic acids that influence one's ADHD dispositions also in some way increases...''
But smoking a ciggerette to cause it to happen to being with in my opinion is the furthest thing from evolution.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

So you are saying all humans react in the exact same manner when in the womb of a smoking mother? How an individual responds to cigarette smoke in utero varies from person to person, this is obvious. Because there is variation here, selection, random or not, can take place.

Evolution isn't magic, its not a bug, its simply a framework that encompasses the differential reproduction of individuals.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have always been nice to everyone on this thread. Just because I don't agree with their beliefs is not a reason to treat me the way I have been.

There is a difference between being nice and being disrespectful. Your one line dismissals are disrespectful. You have been treated more than fairly and given more than enough chances to join into a real debate so don’t pull out that old cherry
What you meant to say was that your just simply dismissing my one lines. The fact of the matter is that I do more typing that anyone else on this thread. This thread has for sometime been known as the thread debating intervention more so than evolution. So I reject your lame excuse, and also advise you that its another silly attempt by you to cover up the truth. I might have some one line replies but that doesn't mean there is no quality in them.

The bottom line is that I still have more material written here than anyone else, and yes that even includes you colin.




Especially profilling, its just wrong and your a top offender of it.

Do you know what it even means? Asking you to supply evidence, links and supporting arguments for your claims is not profiling. Tiring of your circular arguments that show no signs of any improvement since your first post is not profiling. Pointing out the tactics you use to avoid discussion is also not profiling.
I don't have tactics to avoid answering things. What I have is a complex connected answer, and your not versed enough with the understanding of intervention to realize a lot of connections. This is in part due to you ignoring most of my work and being in disbelief, none of which is my fault.




Sure I may have had some one liners but guarantee I'm doing most of the typing on this thread, go back and look.

Most if not all of your posts are avoidance of an issue raised. Your one line reply to my argument against man living inside a whale. 'You deliberately left out the supernatural' is just one of many examples but was the one that broke the camels back. You want to take part in this thread then you had best start debating in a correct and honest fashion. Failure to do so will receive from me the line: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment. Your choice.
You actually expected a report on how it is that I can believe that a person can live inside a whale. The thing that you overlooked is that first your putting words in my mouth, I never said I know its possible. What I'm claiming is that since we are missing the supernatural element, its pretty hard to recreate, or test..




Well maybe thats my fault for assuming your up to speed on things. Assuming that Aliens are advanced and do work with DNA, does that clear it up for you?

How does another poorly constructed opinion from you clear things up when talking about the diversity we see today? Despite me continually explaining what is required from you in regards to a debate. It is just another one line opinion. Dismissive of a vast topic, diversity
Who says its an opinion, I'm going by some of the anchient alien theorys and also by some of the reports of those that have actually been abducted.




I'm not just here to ask questions, I'm also here to see if anyone can prove evolution right, or intervention wrong. I'd be happy with either one at this point.

Here you are again picking what you will answer. Where is your response too: 'You should also be prepared to defend your claims with a reasoned and supported argument. You never have and wilfully avoid doing so'. And you are avoiding it again. Classic.
Then your gong to have to reask it as I see no question here.




Well its a combination of sources...

Wrong again. You supply the argument. Links and quotes. It is not up to me to form your argument for you. Sheesh!


Yes it does, it states that our genes are carrying on ADHD to offspring.

Then quote directly from it because I don’t agree with your claim below:


As per the link I supplied, its clear that ADHD is changing DNA and there by passing on this gene to offspring.

and neither did the quote I supplied from your link. You cannot supply the quote because you know full well that the above is how you interpreted it to suit your claim which is dishonest.
Not at all, and I'll even supply a third one since you missed it the first two times.


(Available evidence suggests that ADHD is genetic)
www.additudemag.com...




A good source for fact finding about this is through speciation.

Yep a source you continue to deny with no reasoned argument.


Everything on this page is either under debate or listed as highly speculative.

What is different to the information you provided o



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





A good source for fact finding about this is through speciation.

Yep a source you continue to deny with no reasoned argument.


Everything on this page is either under debate or listed as highly speculative.

What is different to the information you provided on ADHD where it states:
A great deal of research has been carried out on the genetic factors that may play a role in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
As per the article, Available evidence suggests that ADHD is genetic.

medcitynews.com...
Is ADHD genetic? New evidence says yes.


www.medicalnewstoday.com...
ADHD Is A Genetic Neurodevelopmental Disorder, Scientists Reveal


www.fyiliving.com...
ADHD Not Hype, It’s in Our Genes


Did you have some other belief about this?

You must not have been looking at current information.
It would help if you checked the dates of your sources.
A great deal of research has been carried out on the genetic factors that may play a role in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Note it says MAY. In many other places it says similar things that you base your one line rejections on when you decide it does not support your unfounded claims.




Well its more like no is saying that it doesn't, and all changes are assumed to be by evoltuion.

Not only is this reply poorly constructed to the point of incoherent how does this random reply address my point?
I no longer have the question in front of me so I'm not sure.




I know they are counting this activity as evolution and its not.

So there is your opinion. Now provide the argument, supporting evidence with links and quotes.
Again I'm going by people on this thread claiming that any and all changes are from evolution. When they aren't.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I am not an anti evolutionist but I still think the real question that has yet to have been explained is something else. How did life actually start? Evolution fails to explain the actual starting point. The point where it goes from rocks and water to something alive. I know the normal cop out explanation is amino acids randomly grouped together in the ocean soup and some one celled organism magically came together. Does anybody actually believe that or only say they do to avoid this one major flaw in evolution?

I mean come on if that were the case why can't we recreate that scenario in a lab? Should be a lot easier than just happening randomly right? I never fully accepted this theory for the beginning of life. The rest I agree with and fully understand but the start of it all has no real explanation yet.
edit on 22-6-2012 by KryptKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KryptKeeper
I am not an anti evolutionist but I still think the real question that has yet to have been explained is something else. How did life actually start? Evolution fails to explain the actual starting point.

For the umpteenth time, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. The first lifeforms could have been willed into existence by unicorns for all it matters, none of this has any bearing on the theory of evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by KryptKeeper
I am not an anti evolutionist but I still think the real question that has yet to have been explained is something else. How did life actually start? Evolution fails to explain the actual starting point.

For the umpteenth time, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. The first lifeforms could have been willed into existence by unicorns for all it matters, none of this has any bearing on the theory of evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life.


Well I know so then is that question one that is just assumed? Wonder why more religious people don't just take that route that god is the origin of life. The point I was trying to make is why is it always a matter of "evolution" or "god"? Why does accepting evolution have to mean denying god?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KryptKeeper

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by KryptKeeper
I am not an anti evolutionist but I still think the real question that has yet to have been explained is something else. How did life actually start? Evolution fails to explain the actual starting point.

For the umpteenth time, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. The first lifeforms could have been willed into existence by unicorns for all it matters, none of this has any bearing on the theory of evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life.


Well I know so then is that question one that is just assumed? Wonder why more religious people don't just take that route that god is the origin of life. The point I was trying to make is why is it always a matter of "evolution" or "god"? Why does accepting evolution have to mean denying god?

You do not have to deny God to understand evolution. It's the other way round, you must deny evolution to accept God according to some dogma.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by KryptKeeper
 


The difference between scientists and creationists lies in the gaps.

When scientists don't know, they say so, and keep searching.

When creationists don't know, they say God did it, and leave it be. Also discourage searching.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 




I got it!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



What you meant to say was that your just simply dismissing my one lines. The fact of the matter is that I do more typing that anyone else on this thread.
Don’t keep telling me what I meant to say. Read what I wrote. How many more times? As for you typing more than anyone else. 'An empty vessel makes the most noise'. You make a lot of empty noises.



This thread has for sometime been known as the thread debating intervention more so than evolution
Then if you believe that start supplying the evidence, links and supporting arguments instead of your ignorant uninformed attacks on evolution. A subject you have demonstrated no understanding of at all.


I might have some one line replies but that doesn't mean there is no quality in them.
Most of your unsupported nonsense claims come in one line, often repeated dismissals and have no quality, intelligent content and often do not even address the question asked.



The bottom line is that I still have more material written here than anyone else, and yes that even includes you colin.
You have NO posts on here, NONE that contain a structured argument, supporting evidence, links and quotes. Your rants and delusions do not hold any weight. Your ignorance and hatred of the word Evolution shines like a beacon and blinds only you.


I don't have tactics to avoid answering things. What I have is a complex connected answer, and your not versed enough with the understanding of intervention to realize a lot of connections.
Nope. You avoid all and anything that challenges your fantasy. Your answer to my argument supported with links and quotes on a man living in a whale was. 'You purposely left out the supernatural'
If you believe that is a complex connected answer you are more deluded than I first thought. That is the level of ALL your replies.



You actually expected a report on how it is that I can believe that a person can live inside a whale.
Seeing as though that was what you claimed. A report! What the hell are you on about now? I expected a structured opposing argument supported by evidence, links and quotes. You did not even bother to comment on the information I provided.


The thing that you overlooked is that first your putting words in my mouth, I never said I know its possible.
You claimed it could be possible but again failed to support that claim with anything more than your limited opinion. I showed why it is not possible. You should have responded with an argument that supported your claim. You did not. You never do.



What I'm claiming is that since we are missing the supernatural element, its pretty hard to recreate, or test..
You are on the wrong thread if you believe you need provide no more evidence for YOUR claims than 'god did it'.



Who says its an opinion, I'm going by some of the anchient alien theorys and also by some of the reports of those that have actually been abducted.
Then first. At least spell ‘ancient alien theories’ correctly. Next supply a supporting argument, links and quotes showing how people being abducted and ancient aliens explains the diversity we see today.



Then your gong to have to reask it as I see no question here.
It wasn’t a question, it was a statement of fact as you have demonstrated again in your non response
Classic avoidance again.


Not at all, and I'll even supply a third one since you missed it the first two times.
You still refuse to get it. You supplying a link with no quote and no argument does not cut it. You maintained


As per the link I supplied, its clear that ADHD is changing DNA and there by passing on this gene to offspring.
No where. NO WHERE does your link claim ADHD changes DNA. I asked you to quote where it did and you have yet again run away from the question and are avoiding admitting your error. An error you would not have made if you had supplied the quote in the beginning.

So even in a post by you claiming you do not avoid answering questions. Even in a post where you maintain you enter into debate you did not.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You must not have been looking at current information.
It would help if you checked the dates of your sources.
A great deal of research has been carried out on the genetic factors that may play a role in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Note it says MAY. In many other places it says similar things that you base your one line rejections on when you decide it does not support your unfounded claims.
So what is it now? You are going to post poorly formatted posts where you jumble quotes from me 'Note it says MAY. In many other places it says similar things that you base your one line rejections on when you decide it does not support your unfounded claims.' And then claim you have not had answers?

So again you avoid answering. Even though you show you do not understand your own links and what they say you accept these links that use words like MAY, 'we think', 'theories' yet reject any link to information on evolution on those very grounds.


I no longer have the question in front of me so I'm not sure.
Are you unable to use the back button? Is your point so garbled even you can make no sense out of it? Still another point you avoided, well done.



I know they are counting this activity as evolution and its not.
I replied: So there is your opinion. Now provide the argument, supporting evidence with links and quotes. Your pathetic reply:


Again I'm going by people on this thread claiming that any and all changes are from evolution. When they aren't.
Is that one of your 'complex connected answers'? Looks very much like the same thing as avoidance of an answer and a refusal to enter into a debate on your unfounded claim.

Please do not insult my intelligence again by maintaining you give 'complex connected answers' or that you enter into any real debate and certainly do not try to maintain you do not avoid any issue that challenges your fantasy supported by foundation less claims.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by KryptKeeper
 





I am not an anti evolutionist but I still think the real question that has yet to have been explained is something else. How did life actually start? Evolution fails to explain the actual starting point. The point where it goes from rocks and water to something alive. I know the normal cop out explanation is amino acids randomly grouped together in the ocean soup and some one celled organism magically came together. Does anybody actually believe that or only say they do to avoid this one major flaw in evolution?

I mean come on if that were the case why can't we recreate that scenario in a lab? Should be a lot easier than just happening randomly right? I never fully accepted this theory for the beginning of life. The rest I agree with and fully understand but the start of it all has no real explanation yet.
I agree with you but from a creationist point of view, you still have the same problem, which came first the chicken or the egg, or in this case, who made the creator.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





For the umpteenth time, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. The first lifeforms could have been willed into existence by unicorns for all it matters, none of this has any bearing on the theory of evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life.
John I had to comment about this because I think there is desperation proof through abiogenesis. I notice how no one on this thread talks about it, its as though they are embarrased about it.

I think it was a feeble attempt to answer a still standing question. Epic fail as well. I'm actually shoeked that those on this thread didn't buy into it.

It's evident from that example that the authors of evolution have been and continue to be desperate to connect the dots. It comes as no shoeck because its the same thing I have been saying all along, just check out this link...

www.talkorigins.org...

This link clearly states that evolution is a series of hypothesis. In other words, evolution has never been proven, yet here I am arguing with people on this thread that are convinced that it has in fact been proven.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by KryptKeeper
 





Well I know so then is that question one that is just assumed? Wonder why more religious people don't just take that route that god is the origin of life. The point I was trying to make is why is it always a matter of "evolution" or "god"? Why does accepting evolution have to mean denying god?
The reason why is because it contradicts the bible telling us that god created us just 7000 years ago. It should come as no shock that hardcore proof has allready proven this figure can't be accuarate.

According to what our mtDNA reveals, we have a common ancestor dating over 200,000 years ago. So if you believe that god put you here 7000 years ago, then your just missing 193,000 years of your lineage.

I always look to see if there is a perfect answer that agrees with everyone, and there is.

You see if we were frankenstiened, and our original DNA was over 200,000 years old, it could explain how God might of claimed to have created us. It is just one example. As an example I have a friend that just married into a family that has the patend on a special potatoe. The father had to pay big bucks to a geneticist to make this special potatoe. What they did was they took a standard russet potatoe and crossed it with a ruby red. You might know this potatoe as being common in stews and people usually like them even with the skin on, they are yummy. Only problem is they are small. So by crossing it with the russet, they were able to make a giant sized ruby red. Now if you want that potatoe, you have to go to him to get it as that is the only place you will find it.

Keep in mind that the term frankensteined does not mean made from scratch, it means they are starting with existing parts. IMO not a true creator. I alway think about my GF father and how he took a bunck of motorcycle parts from different bikes and put them together and claims he made a motorcycle. Honestly did he?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What you meant to say was that your just simply dismissing my one lines. The fact of the matter is that I do more typing that anyone else on this thread.

Don’t keep telling me what I meant to say. Read what I wrote. How many more times? As for you typing more than anyone else. 'An empty vessel makes the most noise'. You make a lot of empty noises.
My point still stands that I do most of the typing on this thread.




This thread has for sometime been known as the thread debating intervention more so than evolution

Then if you believe that start supplying the evidence, links and supporting arguments instead of your ignorant uninformed attacks on evolution. A subject you have demonstrated no understanding of at all.
That wasn't my point, it would not be good to just go to a random thread and start preaching about something you believe in. In this case there is no way we coul have evolved if we aren't from here. Just plain and simple.

gspcsermons.blogspot.com...

Hebrews 11 is a good place to start as it tells you in english that earth is not our home. But there is more. Also touching on thie supernatural elements, it would appear to be making a statement that god has them and we don't. IMO it is out of context and actually saying that we had them and god took them away.




I might have some one line replies but that doesn't mean there is no quality in them.

Most of your unsupported nonsense claims come in one line, often repeated dismissals and have no quality, intelligent content and often do not even address the question asked.
Most of my replies are direct answers to your comments. Sometimes it might be to deep for you to understand the connection. A good way to check this is to ask me the same question again, and if I keep giving the same answer then its obviously relivant, at least in my eyes. If I give different answers then I'm just mumbling.




The bottom line is that I still have more material written here than anyone else, and yes that even includes you colin.

You have NO posts on here, NONE that contain a structured argument, supporting evidence, links and quotes. Your rants and delusions do not hold any weight. Your ignorance and hatred of the word Evolution shines like a beacon and blinds only you.
You have to remember too that most of what your claiming about me not providing links is also saying that you don't accept the links I have provided. There is a big difference between not supplying anything and not supplying something that you accept.




I don't have tactics to avoid answering things. What I have is a complex connected answer, and your not versed enough with the understanding of intervention to realize a lot of connections.

Nope. You avoid all and anything that challenges your fantasy. Your answer to my argument supported with links and quotes on a man living in a whale was. 'You purposely left out the supernatural' If you believe that is a complex connected answer you are more deluded than I first thought. That is the level of ALL your replies.
Well come on Colin, your science savvy. You understand that if you want to prove or disprove something you have to recreate the event. Do you not agree you have to recreate it? How are you going to recreate it fairly when your missing the supernatural element to begin with? Thats not a fair recreation. The problem is that we don't have those abilitys, and we have no access to them either. So recreating them is not in the scope of being fair. So your not going to be able to prove or disprove the whale theory as your missing all the elements that are necessary.
I do love how you skip ahead however like you do.




You actually expected a report on how it is that I can believe that a person can live inside a whale.

Seeing as though that was what you claimed. A report! What the hell are you on about now? I expected a structured opposing argument supported by evidence, links and quotes. You did not even bother to comment on the information I provided.
Thats because your making assumptions that all of the elements are present to recreate the whale theory, and they aren't.




The thing that you overlooked is that first your putting words in my mouth, I never said I know its possible.

You claimed it could be possible but again failed to support that claim with anything more than your limited opinion. I showed why it is not possible. You should have responded with an argument that supported your claim. You did not. You never do.
Well the day you are able to summon the supernatural powers that were involved, I will believe you. If that were true, you would be on CNN right now and not talking on this forum.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 418  419  420    422  423  424 >>

log in

join