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: 422
31
<< 419  420  421    423  424  425 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
Again your not going to be able to recreate something without all the elements present. You can't just skip over the supernatural elements and call your theory good.




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'.
God did seem to be the person that a lot of these powers seemed to be surrounded around. You were right in your observation of who it was, but it looks more like your in dissbelief. I'm not here to help people believe or not believe, that is something you have to look within yourself for. The only thing I can tell is that we don't have those supernatural abilitys, and they did seem to be present in the bible, so I'm not sure how your going to recreate them fairly.

www.csicop.org...
This link shows how its possible that over 4 million people have been abducted.




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'.
Oh come on, its not like your can prove evolution. God isn't here so there is a very good reason why these things can't be recreated. Evolution is EVERWHERE, so you have no excuse.




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
Well I'm not sure it explains diversity, I guess it could.




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
No I lost track and keep of the question is all, I'm not avoiding. If I were avoiding I woudln't be commenting about it like I am.




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
Thats either becasue your blind or not making the connection, probably both.




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.
Depends on what you think by the term change. I'm saying that ADHD leaves a change in our DNA in other words there is proof of ADHD in our DNA. Not that it has a magical ability to change our DNA.




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 see so by avoiding all the links I presented as proof and sticking to yours which is outdate, and I pointed out to be, you think your still right.

Your not colin, your wrong.


[qu




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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
No if I were avoiding, I wouldn't be responding to you about it.




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 the input from others on this thread claiming that ALL changes are from evolution. That is false.




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.
Commenting about a reply on here is not a sign of avoidance.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



My point still stands that I do most of the typing on this thread.
Trouble is your posts contain nothing at all which I see you don’t deny. Shameful.


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.
Then stop doing it.



In this case there is no way we coul have evolved if we aren't from here. Just plain and simple.
Another baseless claim by you and another avoidance of my point you are supposed to be responding too. Again you supply a link with no quotes and no supporting argument other than your miserable often repeated opinion based on ignorance. Massive failure as usual.



Most of my replies are direct answers to your comments.
My comments are asking you to supply evidence, links and supporting argument. The fact you admit to most of your replies being one line confirms what I have said time and time again.



Sometimes it might be to deep for you to understand the connection.
Nope. I know a dishonest, ignorant reply when I read one. In your case I have read hundreds.


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.
Nope. A good way is to read your argument, supporting evidence and links/quotes. You never supply them.



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.
Hell you don’t accept most of the links you supply once it is pointed out they don’t support your flimsy claims. You don’t quote what it is you think your links supports you and never discuss any points that show you are incorrect or have interpreted them wrongly to suit your claims. The reason you refuse to quote from them



There is a big difference between not supplying anything and not supplying something that you accept.
See above, refer back.


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?
Did you not even read it? I wrote if a man can live inside a whale so could a seal. I challenged you to find reports of live seals being found inside whales. You did not and have never addressed that point.


So your not going to be able to prove or disprove the whale theory as your missing all the elements that are necessary.
I proved it to be so unlikely you had no opposing argument to it. It is your claim a man could live in a whale so you should be able to provide a logical argument to support that. God did it is not that.


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.
Another prime example of your ignorance and avoidance.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Again I'm going by the input from others on this thread claiming that ALL changes are from evolution. That is false.


Again all your doing is being vague, you can't just blanket statement your claim you must be more specific. How is any one going to debate "That is false".


I will give you an example:

Joe says this woman's tan proves evolution.


"Tooth writes back".
That is false aliens did it!

Followed by links and your thoughts.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Again your not going to be able to recreate something without all the elements present. You can't just skip over the supernatural elements and call your theory good.
Again confirmation that you just dismiss all arguments that challenge your fantasy. You cant even show evidence that there are other elements present. Again I ask you. Do you really believe this is the correct thread for you when your best reply is, 'god did it'?


God did seem to be the person that a lot of these powers seemed to be surrounded around.
This and the trash that followed were not worth a reply. You confirm you are in the wrong thread.


Oh come on, its not like your can prove evolution. God isn't here so there is a very good reason why these things can't be recreated. Evolution is EVERWHERE, so you have no excuse.
So where is god? I thought you claimed he is abducting people. The only reason you see no proof for evolution is because you refuse to look. You’re too scared as your fantasy would crumble and you would face a world that terrifies you.



Well I'm not sure it explains diversity, I guess it could.
That is your answer. You guess it could. On a thread where you are meant to provide an explanation of diversity we see today your answer is 'I guess it could'.


The theory of evolution can and does explain it. It has overwhelming evidence to support it, is testable and observable. Your best defence for intervention is ‘I guess it could’.
You are tragic.


No I lost track and keep of the question is all, I'm not avoiding. If I were avoiding I woudln't be commenting about it like I am.
You do not know how to use the back button then. Sorry I don’t accept your feeble excuse.



Thats either becasue your blind or not making the connection, probably both.
There is another option. Your refusal to supply an argument supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links are never provided by you. I know why. If you did you know your flimsy claims could never stand scrutiny.



Depends on what you think by the term change. I'm saying that ADHD leaves a change in our DNA in other words there is proof of ADHD in our DNA. Not that it has a magical ability to change our DNA.
I know exactly what you claimed.


As per the link I supplied, its clear that ADHD is changing DNA and there by passing on this gene to offspring.
I have asked you now enough times to quote directly from that source where it supports your claim. You again have avoided doing so. Very dishonest. Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment


I see so by avoiding all the links I presented as proof and sticking to yours which is outdate, and I pointed out to be, you think your still right.
You failed again to quote directly from those links. I know how you spin the information and that is the reason you refuse to provide those quotes. The only result would be me pointing out where you are wrong and asking you to supply a quote to support your claim which you will not do as above shows clearly. I'm bored with your childish tactics. Enter the debate or exit the thread.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No if I were avoiding, I wouldn't be responding to you about it.
Nope. If you were not avoiding you would have used the back button to review your error not offering the feeble excuse above.

Again I'm going by the input from others on this thread claiming that ALL changes are from evolution. That is false.
Again show your evidence for that claim. Use links and quotes. Failure to do so means you are making yet another unfounded claim and avoiding debate.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
First off…Tooth, you still don’t understand what evolution is!
However, I’m feeling optimistic tonight so will give it another go.

You constantly refer to “changes from evolution”, or “because of evolution” and II think this is where your ignorance is most obvious. You see, evolution doesn’t cause change, change ( at its highest level) is evolution….allow me to expand further.

ADHD…that got your attention… I have no idea how truthful or accurate your “research” into smoking and ADHD is but….if smoking caused a genetic change in the offspring that was able to be passed on…that’s just genetics…however, if that genetic change altered the survival chances of the offspring…..positive or negative…that is the beginning of an evolving state.

Lets pretend the change is positive.

The offspring is better able to mate, feed, avoid predators. Those with the “change” would out compete those without and would soon(100s off 1000’s of year) become the dominant(i.e. the most abundant, not the ones with the high heeled boots and whips) species.

On the down side, if the change were negative, those with the change would find it harder to compete, (feed, mate. Etc.) and would soon (100’s 1000’s……….etc) die out.

Both of these examples are species either surviving or becoming extinct due to genetic changes that have caused them to either thrive or struggle in certain environmental circumstance.

This process is what we call (unless any reply to this post starts with the word “jelly”, that reply is deemed void) evolution.

Stop believing that those of us that understand and accept evolution think that evolution is something that causes something else to happen. That is your ignorance of the subject not ours.

Evolution is the word we use to explain a multitude of possibilities that allow species to adapt to their environment which, over time can result in the emergence of entirely new species. (scientific definition – unable to produce viable offspring)

Evolution does not cause change...change results in evolution

edit on 23-6-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





My point still stands that I do most of the typing on this thread.

Trouble is your posts contain nothing at all which I see you don’t deny. Shameful.
Well then your ignorance would be in not opening your eyes, and mind.




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.

Then stop doing it.
Again your comment proves you don't pay attention. I'm not just randomly participating on threads, I'm on this one for a reason.




In this case there is no way we coul have evolved if we aren't from here. Just plain and simple.

Another baseless claim by you and another avoidance of my point you are supposed to be responding too. Again you supply a link with no quotes and no supporting argument other than your miserable often repeated opinion based on ignorance. Massive failure as usual.
I supplied the link, I'm not going to do YOUR reading for you.




Most of my replies are direct answers to your comments.

My comments are asking you to supply evidence, links and supporting argument. The fact you admit to most of your replies being one line confirms what I have said time and time again
I never admitted to most of my replys being one liners, this is another classic example of how you shift facts around to suit your point of view. You did an execellent job of this with your understanding of evolution.




Sometimes it might be to deep for you to understand the connection.

Nope. I know a dishonest, ignorant reply when I read one. In your case I have read hundreds
If I have had hundreds, did it not ever occur to you that I might be speaking the truth.




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.

Nope. A good way is to read your argument, supporting evidence and links/quotes. You never supply them.
So now your story has changed from not accepting my terms and links for definition, to I never supplied them, now your saying I have never supplied any links for anything.




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.

Hell you don’t accept most of the links you supply once it is pointed out they don’t support your flimsy claims. You don’t quote what it is you think your links supports you and never discuss any points that show you are incorrect or have interpreted them wrongly to suit your claims. The reason you refuse to quote from them
Thats because there never are any points that show me to be incorrect. Lets face it, your in denial.




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?

Did you not even read it? I wrote if a man can live inside a whale so could a seal. I challenged you to find reports of live seals being found inside whales. You did not and have never addressed that point.
Again your totally making misguided assumptions minus any supernatural elements that are now missing.




So your not going to be able to prove or disprove the whale theory as your missing all the elements that are necessary.

I proved it to be so unlikely you had no opposing argument to it. It is your claim a man could live in a whale so you should be able to provide a logical argument to support that. God did it is not that
But Colin, as a scientist you understand that you have to first recreate the subject and enviroment and all of the elements before you can make any decisions.
I want to know how you were able to recreate supernatural abilities?




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.

Another prime example of your ignorance and avoidance.
If I have ever been ignorant, this is certainly not one of the times.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



But Colin, as a scientist you understand that you have to first recreate the subject and enviroment and all of the elements before you can make any decisions.
I have never claimed to be a scientist. Unlike you who claims to be a science major, a borderline genius and a discovererer of an 'arcane virus'.


None of your tripe is worth a reply. Try something new as you are boring me.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Again your not going to be able to recreate something without all the elements present. You can't just skip over the supernatural elements and call your theory good.

Again confirmation that you just dismiss all arguments that challenge your fantasy. You cant even show evidence that there are other elements present. Again I ask you. Do you really believe this is the correct thread for you when your best reply is, 'god did it'?
I think the question here is more along the lines, do you have something that proves he didn't.
We have documentation backed up by several non related sources, which complete the bible. Written testimony, and all that Colin can come out with is, oh great god did it. Where is your proof that he didn't. I'm more inclined to believe doccumented testimony over your misguided understanding, any day.




God did seem to be the person that a lot of these powers seemed to be surrounded around.

This and the trash that followed were not worth a reply. You confirm you are in the wrong thread
Why would you think I'm in the wrong thread? Just because my understanding doesn't support yours? Thats pretty lame. A creator could explain diversity as we see and understand it.

Do you support the findings in this link colin?
www.talkorigins.org...

If you do, I have to tell you that I think this page is by far the most accurate I have read about evolution. If you just throw in the speciation from wiki, you basically have everything you need, as this one isn't as in depth.
What I get from this information is a series of hypothesis, most of which have never been proven to be as a result of evolution. What I'm saying is they have never proved a connection with all the hypothesis, they are just guessing its all from evolution. In addition most of the hypothesis have also never been proven, so again they are just guessing. In addition to this they have never confirmed that evolution is to blame for what they are claiming, it really looks like this is just a large guessing game.




Oh come on, its not like your can prove evolution. God isn't here so there is a very good reason why these things can't be recreated. Evolution is EVERWHERE, so you have no excuse.

So where is god? I thought you claimed he is abducting people. The only reason you see no proof for evolution is because you refuse to look. You’re too scared as your fantasy would crumble and you would face a world that terrifies you.
Thats a very good question. As per what it says in the bible, he reached a point where he indicated he would not be able to contend to us. In otherwords he either got old and most likely died, or just decided to move on.
From the horrid events that were going on, it makes total sense that he was sick of dealing with us. IMO good riddence, he was doing nothing more than killing us and punishing us anyhow.

So there might be questions about who he represents, or who represents him. We may never know as he could have been acting alone, although he surely had help in dealings with us. It's possible we werent the only ones he was having control over either. It's also possible that others were helping in a businss venture. Either way, he is gone and indicated his departure. Your making an assumption that I figured he was still here today, and very much alive in peoples minds. What your going by is the traditional missunderstanding through faith, and like I have said a dozen times I don't believe in faith. Faith was just a tool to conform us, and when that didn't work, death and punishment would follow. Some people believe toaday that they must still follow or death and punishement will follow, they are wrong.

It is because of the events that took place, that force me to not believe in faith. It goes against the idea of a creator. Pretending for the moment that he did in fact create everything on this planet, its total cruelty and inhumane and genocide with all the things he did to us. IMO it is not the definition of a real creator. Not that a real creator can't do what he did, just that it makes no sense. A creator creates, he doesn't destroy, and there was a lot of punishement and destroying going on. If he was our real creator, and a real creator at that, then he must have done a crappy job as death and genocide are pretty drastic measures.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well I'm not sure it explains diversity, I guess it could.

That is your answer. You guess it could. On a thread where you are meant to provide an explanation of diversity we see today your answer is 'I guess it could'.

The theory of evolution can and does explain it. It has overwhelming evidence to support it, is testable and observable. Your best defence for intervention is ‘I guess it could’. You are tragic.
Well you never said it had to follow your understanding, so thats why I said that.

I think that all things are hersay related to each other through DNA, through a creator. As the creations progressed, a lot of the previous DNA would get used on the next creation.

The idea is not far fetched either, as humans we do the exact same thing everyday. The tire as an example was not specifically made for airplanes, yet we use them on airplanes, they were modified for that purpose. Still we use tires on cars, bicycles, motor homes, lawn equipment, wheelchairs, etc

I think that a very savvy creator, with the right tools and the right know how, could have just as easialy of done the same thing. It does seem odd that so much DNA does match in so many things. Like how 70% of our DNA matches with a rats DNA. It could just simply be the evidence of a creator making new life and still using parts of others.

The idea is nothing new, and in fact, it appears that this might even be the same thing that god did when he alegidly created us. It is possible that he started with existing DNA from a humanoid species, and either cross bred with others, or manually made the rest. It is possible that this is what was meant when it was writen that god made us in his image. That could have been an image of a microscope.




Thats either becasue your blind or not making the connection, probably both.

There is another option. Your refusal to supply an argument supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links are never provided by you. I know why. If you did you know your flimsy claims could never stand scrutiny.
That would be becasue most of our disagreements our settled over the TITLE of a page or column, I just assumed you wouldjn't need direction to a title.




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

I have asked you now enough times to quote directly from that source where it supports your claim. You again have avoided doing so. Very dishonest. Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment


psychcentral.com...
The Genetics of ADHD
Specific gene studies have produced good evidence linking certain genes to the disorder,

www.sciencedaily.com...
New ADHD Gene Study Points to Defects in Brain Signaling Pathways
Its causes are unknown, but it tends to run in families and is thought to be influenced by many interacting genes. Drug treatment is not always effective, particularly in severe cases

www.webmd.com...
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Causes of ADHD
ADHD tends to run in families. Studies have shown certain genetic characteristics that occur with high frequency in families where one or more family member has ADHD. Also, if one or both parents have ADHD, their children are more likely to develop the condition. And at least one-third of all fathers who had ADHD in their youth have children with ADHD

www.medicalnewstoday.com...
ADHD - Four Genes Linked To The Disorder
Four gene variants, all members of the glutamate receptor gene family, appear to be involved in vital brain signaling pathways in a sub-set of children with ADHD




I see so by avoiding all the links I presented as proof and sticking to yours which is outdate, and I pointed out to be, you think your still right.

You failed again to quote directly from those links. I know how you spin the information and that is the reason you refuse to provide those quotes. The only result would be me pointing out where you are wrong and asking you to supply a quote to support your claim which you will not do as above shows clearly. I'm bored with your childish tactics. Enter the debate or exit the thread.
I provided the links, all you have to do is click on them and read them, I'm not going to read them for you.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No if I were avoiding, I wouldn't be responding to you about it.

Nope. If you were not avoiding you would have used the back button to review your error not offering the feeble excuse above.
Either way, its obvious I'm not avoiding.




Again I'm going by the input from others on this thread claiming that ALL changes are from evolution. That is false.

Again show your evidence for that claim. Use links and quotes. Failure to do so means you are making yet another unfounded claim and avoiding debate.
Why would I go through the trouble, it wasn't you, and all your going to do after I post it is say, oh well it wasn't me.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

'Everything goes from an ordered state, to a disordered state' 2nd Law of Thermodynamics



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





First off…Tooth, you still don’t understand what evolution is!
However, I’m feeling optimistic tonight so will give it another go.

You constantly refer to “changes from evolution”, or “because of evolution” and II think this is where your ignorance is most obvious. You see, evolution doesn’t cause change, change ( at its highest level) is evolution….allow me to expand further.

ADHD…that got your attention… I have no idea how truthful or accurate your “research” into smoking and ADHD is but….if smoking caused a genetic change in the offspring that was able to be passed on…that’s just genetics…however, if that genetic change altered the survival chances of the offspring…..positive or negative…that is the beginning of an evolving state.


So in other words, a mother smoking while pregnant, can offset evolution. Sorry but I don't buy it.




Lets pretend the change is positive.

The offspring is better able to mate, feed, avoid predators. Those with the “change” would out compete those without and would soon(100s off 1000’s of year) become the dominant(i.e. the most abundant, not the ones with the high heeled boots and whips) species.

On the down side, if the change were negative, those with the change would find it harder to compete, (feed, mate. Etc.) and would soon (100’s 1000’s……….etc) die out.

Both of these examples are species either surviving or becoming extinct due to genetic changes that have caused them to either thrive or struggle in certain environmental circumstance.
Of course the positive changes couldn't possibly be natural and the way that our genes were programmed, and the negative ones couldn't possibly be punishements handed down from god, just like how its written in the bible?




This process is what we call (unless any reply to this post starts with the word “jelly”, that reply is deemed void) evolution.

Stop believing that those of us that understand and accept evolution think that evolution is something that causes something else to happen. That is your ignorance of the subject not ours.
I understand, but I do that on purpose refelcing back on how the changes happen, it would appear that evolution is making things happen. I understand its just a process.




Evolution is the word we use to explain a multitude of possibilities that allow species to adapt to their environment which, over time can result in the emergence of entirely new species. (scientific definition – unable to produce viable offspring)

Evolution does not cause change...change results in evolution
Again I understand that but with all the changes that cause evolution, there must be intelligence behind it.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   


Thats because there never are any points that show me to be incorrect.


This HAS to be the most ironic sentence of this entire thread



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You didn't read the post, your reply is void.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Of course the positive changes couldn't possibly be natural and the way that our genes were programmed, and the negative ones couldn't possibly be punishements handed down from god, just like how its written in the bible?


Wow, just... wow



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
(Yawns) Heard all this unsupported rubbish from you many times. Got anything new to say? Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
All that writing to avoid giving me either the quote that supported your unfounded claim or admission you were wrong.


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



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Why would I go through the trouble, it wasn't you, and all your going to do after I post it is say, oh well it wasn't me.
You go through the trouble because you need to supply the quote from your link that supports your unfounded claim. You cannot because it does not support it. You spun and misrepresented what information was there to suit your fantasy. That is called dishonesty.

Now you give some random answer to avoid the point again.


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




top topics



 
31
<< 419  420  421    423  424  425 >>

log in

join