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: 428
31
<< 425  426  427    429  430  431 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





How could I be Ten when I have been through college.

Two answers spring to mind. #1 You have not been to college. Plenty of evidence to show that or #2 You are a borderline genius. Very little supporting evidence.
Your only saying that because I don't agree with evolution. If I did, you would say otherwise.




I understand both of them just fine, but what you seem to keep missing is that I'm not just goin to take your word for it that evolution is a scientific theory, I have yet to see that myself.

You seem unable to see anything that challenges you delusion so again I ask: Why are you on this thread?
You honestly haven't presented anything that would be challenging, there is a difference.




I'm assum;ing it was recreated at some point, or are you assuming it was, and did they have the supernatural elements as well, or were they giving it an unfair try.

How do you think anyone can answer that babble? Is it in code?
The same way anyone could babble about proving the bible wrong.




Depends on what you mean, for example I life to refer to evolution has a bug or a creator, its my opinion which you haven't been able to disprove so how do you know its being dishonest?

Nope. Changing things to suit your argument is dishonest, plain and simple. Evolution is a word not a bug and does not create. More proof if any were needed that you have no clue what evolution is. You are changing evolution to suit your argument. Which is dishonest. See above
But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species.


cre·ate/krēˈāt/Verb: 1.Bring (something) into existence: "he created a lake"; "170 jobs were created".
2.Cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions: "divorce only created problems for children".
Synonyms: make - produce - originate - generate - form - cause


Note that something can be brought into existance, which could even be through process.




Documentation is very important. Trouble is the bible does not constitute documentation in science and you failed to debate that very point: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread.
Well evolution is not recreatable either by science so I don't know what to tell you.




But you are meant to be answering: 'Nope. It’s called belief because you have no proof or evidence. Just faith that it is true.' answer that as you should have instead of the nonsense above.
I don't think haveing documentation of something is the same as having faith.




Supernatural things are impossible to recreate or prove, did it not ever occur to you that this is probably why they documented these things?

Who are they? If you can’t prove 'things' occurred your in big trouble because this is not the thread to preach your homemade faith in.
I don't think documentation creates a faith.




I know what we say about yours
More opinion.




Mr Science major indeed. Your own words. 'You have no proof'. You cannot use logic if you have nothing to base that logic on.
The bible is accepted as a historical document, just because you don't accept it as such doesn't mean its not.




Yeah right. We all know how you read things.
Ya minus the faith is a good start.




Lie to yourself by all means but don’t try it on me. You believe in something that has no evidence. Based on a book that has no evidence. All you have is your faith. Your constant struggle to get recognition on this thread confirms your faith is very fragile and so it should be.
Just like evolution, except I have documentation, so it looks like I win.




Yeah right. You know more than scholars that spend a lifetime studying the bible. That debate with other scholars and only you know the truth. You know better than 150 years of accumulated knowledge, peer reviewed and tested with supporting evidence. That looks pretty much like you claim to know it all to me.
Well that was the whole point, I'm not alone, von daniken, sitchen, Pye, all agree. So now what are you going to say, we are all wrong and your right?




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your only saying that because I don't agree with evolution. If I did, you would say otherwise.
Nope it is the childish responses and limited immature world view contained in all your answers.


You honestly haven't presented anything that would be challenging, there is a difference.
I asked why you continue to post on this thread when you deny anything without reason or proof.


The same way anyone could babble about proving the bible wrong.
So even you who wrote that babble cannot decode it. Classic.


But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species.
Please quote where I wrote that and if you cannot please write a retraction of your dishonest statement. You cannot change my words to suit your argument.



Note that something can be brought into existance, which could even be through process.
Note where evolution does not describe anything being brought into existence. It describes small changes over time and selected for by the environment. I thought you claimed to understand evolution after in depth study?


Well evolution is not recreatable either by science so I don't know what to tell you.
So you dishonestly misquote me again. What an immature and dishonest way to try to win a point. How old are you again?


I don't think haveing documentation of something is the same as having faith.
Way not to answer the point made again for the second time. Proves my point though, all you have is faith.


I don't think documentation creates a faith.
And again you refuse to answer the point.


The bible is accepted as a historical document, just because you don't accept it as such doesn't mean its not.
You failed to enter into debate when I showed you from your own link the bible is anything but a clear historical document. Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.



Just like evolution, except I have documentation, so it looks like I win.
Your delusions are showing. Evolution unlike the bible has supporting evidence, is observable, testable.


Well that was the whole point, I'm not alone, von daniken, sitchen, Pye, all agree. So now what are you going to say, we are all wrong and your right?
Even von daniken, sitchen, Pye would back away from you fella. But my point was religious scholars and they don’t come close to that except in your strange world of magic and denial. So answer my point not you’re made up fallacy:

Yeah right. You know more than scholars that spend a lifetime studying the bible. That debate with other scholars and only you know the truth. You know better than 150 years of accumulated knowledge, peer reviewed and tested with supporting evidence. That looks pretty much like you claim to know it all to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So bringing up the old target food nonsense again?

Like a broken tape recorder running a comedy tape
Thats because I'm STILL WAITING for someone to prove it wrong.


People have provided you with tooooooons of proof to completely dismantle that silly target food argument...but just every other FACT that goes against your silly religion, you simply ignore it


Basically, every time someone provides proof that destroys your argument, your reaction is:"LALALALALALALALA, I can't heeeeeeear you!!".

So either you're trolling, or you're simply so ignorant and/or uneducated that you can't even accept facts anymore...take your pick.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your only saying that because I don't agree with evolution. If I did, you would say otherwise.

Nope it is the childish responses and limited immature world view contained in all your answers.
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Your the one ignoring my posts because you can't come up with any answers.




You honestly haven't presented anything that would be challenging, there is a difference.

I asked why you continue to post on this thread when you deny anything without reason or proof.
The only thing I have denied is that evolution is not a fact, and its never been proven, which is all true even by the sites standards I keep mentioning.




So even you who wrote that babble cannot decode it. Classic.
Your just a person with many avoidence tactics, so you lose.




But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species.

Please quote where I wrote that and if you cannot please write a retraction of your dishonest statement. You cannot change my words to suit your argument.
Are you now denying that the process of evolution can render new species? You do believe that we have a common ancestor with apes don't you? And you do believe that a creator did not do this right? So how was it done?




Note that something can be brought into existance, which could even be through process.

Note where evolution does not describe anything being brought into existence. It describes small changes over time and selected for by the environment. I thought you claimed to understand evolution after in depth study?
And after many changes you basically can end up with a totally different species, or is all life the same species according to your understanding?




Well evolution is not recreatable either by science so I don't know what to tell you.

So you dishonestly misquote me again. What an immature and dishonest way to try to win a point. How old are you again?
Why don't you try leaving your personal references out of the subject for just once and address the topic!




I don't think haveing documentation of something is the same as having faith.

Way not to answer the point made again for the second time. Proves my point though, all you have is faith.
But I don't have faith, I have documentation. Now you on the other hand believe in something that is not recreatable and can't be proven, and has no documentation so I would call that faith.




The bible is accepted as a historical document, just because you don't accept it as such doesn't mean its not.

You failed to enter into debate when I showed you from your own link the bible is anything but a clear historical document. Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.
I'm just going by whats in the definition, but as I'm learning you don't like to follow definitions of anything that proves evolution wrong.




Just like evolution, except I have documentation, so it looks like I win.

Your delusions are showing. Evolution unlike the bible has supporting evidence, is observable, testable.
The evidence in evolution is nothing more than suggestive. It would help if you read the page I keep referring to.




Well that was the whole point, I'm not alone, von daniken, sitchen, Pye, all agree. So now what are you going to say, we are all wrong and your right?

Even von daniken, sitchen, Pye would back away from you fella. But my point was religious scholars and they don’t come close to that except in your strange world of magic and denial. So answer my point not you’re made up fallacy:

Yeah right. You know more than scholars that spend a lifetime studying the bible. That debate with other scholars and only you know the truth. You know better than 150 years of accumulated knowledge, peer reviewed and tested with supporting evidence. That looks pretty much like you claim to know it all to me.
First, you told me I was following them, now your claiming they would back away, so which is it? Magic is just your way of saying that you don't understand, and I totally agree.
I never said I know ALL of the truth, but I'm sure I have captured things that were missed by standard religion. The problem is that they too don't want to believe the book is about other life, and your never going to find out for yourself untill you read it with an unbiased mind.

I surley don't know it all, but I obviously know a lot more than you do.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





People have provided you with tooooooons of proof to completely dismantle that silly target food argument...but just every other FACT that goes against your silly religion, you simply ignore it
The only thing that ever got addressed was that target food can't be real because Ants show redundant activity, which was false because its still under natural circumstances.




Basically, every time someone provides proof that destroys your argument, your reaction is:"LALALALALALALALA, I can't heeeeeeear you!!".
On the contrary Colin is the only one that has been ignoring things on this thread.




So either you're trolling, or you're simply so ignorant and/or uneducated that you can't even accept facts anymore...take your pick.
Ha ha maybe I'm trolling for facts and having one hell of a time finding any.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You don't even understand what "natural" means in the first place!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Your the one ignoring my posts because you can't come up with any answers.
Really ......
...... I don’t see any reasoned argument supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links to give reply's too?


The only thing I have denied is that evolution is not a fact, and its never been proven, which is all true even by the sites standards I keep mentioning.
Why you insist on this dishonesty I have no idea. Look at every page in this thread and everyone that responds to you writes the same thing. You deny without debate, reason or supported argument everything you are offered. Delude yourself, who cares but why do you believe anyone else is prepared to enter the La La land you constructed to shield you from the real world that you cannot handle.


Are you now denying that the process of evolution can render new species?
Here is a classic case of you ignoring and discarding anything you are offered. Evolution is a word, it cannot render, create. It is not a bug, does not have arms eyes or intellect. It describes small changes over time and selected for by the environment. A new species evolves from an existing organism. NOTHING is created.

Now to my point: Where is the retraction for your dishonest statement as you obviously cannot supply the alleged quote.



You do believe that we have a common ancestor with apes don't you? And you do believe that a creator did not do this right? So how was it done?
I know we have a common ancestor along with all the apes, we have the evidence. How was it done? Evolution how else? If you are asking how did life begin who knows and to be honest just like the theory of evolution, I don’t care. You can make up any fantasy you like for creation. ooops you have already



And after many changes you basically can end up with a totally different species, or is all life the same species according to your understanding?
We categorise organisms into species. It’s what we do. The reality is life is life. We are related to all other life and the further back in time you go the closer the relationship gets.

So yes after many changes the organism 1 can no longer breed with organism 2. We call that a new species the fact is, it is life. It survives long enough to breed and pass on its advantages to the next generation.

This is basic stuff and after 400 pages you still do not understand it. Time to make you work for your living or for you to go.


Why don't you try leaving your personal references out of the subject for just once and address the topic!
When you misquote and blatantly try to make false claims about what I wrote I think calling you immature and dishonest is pretty tame. Questioning your age is because I cannot believe your poor behaviour on this thread.

Now you tell me what the topic is.


But I don't have faith, I have documentation. Now you on the other hand believe in something that is not recreatable and can't be proven, and has no documentation so I would call that faith.
Yes you are correct. You show you have blind fanatical faith and that is all you have. To write evolution has no evidence shows how deep your denial goes. Again why are you on this thread?


I'm just going by whats in the definition, but as I'm learning you don't like to follow definitions of anything that proves evolution wrong.

Your definition did not state that the bible was clear historical document. You were unable to provide an opposing argument to mine that showed exactly that. So you lost the point: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.


First, you told me I was following them, now your claiming they would back away, so which is it?
You really cannot read can you? You blindly adapt what these people write to suit your made up religion. You dangle them in front of us like they are prophets. If you were ever to meet them and tell them your views they would find a reason to quickly go elsewhere.


Magic is just your way of saying that you don't understand, and I totally agree.
Nope. Read the definition I supplied.


I never said I know ALL of the truth, but I'm sure I have captured things that were missed by standard religion.
And the rest of what followed above shows you believe you know more than anyone else. A person that finds spelling a task. That cannot separate reality from fantasy and denies anything that challenges your silly homemade religion


I surley don't know it all, but I obviously know a lot more than you do
I see no evidence of that



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
this guy can





posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The only thing that ever got addressed was that target food can't be real because Ants show redundant activity, which was false because its still under natural circumstances.
You mentioned my name so I will address your points.

You and I are going to change things on this thread. You are going to supply in support of your claims a reasoned argument Supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links. Failure to do so will result in a new phrase.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment'

You seem hell bent on going full circle and revisiting your nonsense term 'target food'. You have one last chance.

Define target food. Provide a supporting argument for 'target food' supported by evidence links and quotes from those links.

My money is on you running like hell. Surprise me.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well they would first of all know that Harry Potter is listed as a fantasy book as it says so. Just like how the bible is listed as a supernatural read. Seriously unless you know what that means, you may not be qualified to read it based on the fact that you will not understand it, which seems to be the case here.

You aren't listening to me. If they dug up random chapters and had no way to tell where the book was from, it could easily be misinterpreted to be a true story. Of course I know what supernatural means, but aliens are not supernatural, and it DOES NOT MEAN the bible has any credibility whatsoever. What is so hard to understand about that?



Again your making an assumption that all of this life is from here to begin with while we have documentation that its not. It really throws everything up in the air and makes a mess but that is what we are dealing with.

Stop changing the subject every time you can't prove your point. Holy crap. I didn't assume ANYTHING, I'm asking you to show me why the bible is credible and you can't do it. End of story.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mellisamouse
this guy can




I really hope this is a joke. It's hard to tell, but last I checked, even creationists don't follow Hovind anymore. He's a liar and a fraud.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



I really hope this is a joke. It's hard to tell, but last I checked, even creationists don't follow Hovind anymore. He's a liar and a fraud.
Strangely his beliefs sound familiar. It couldn’t be could it


May explain the non taxing claims being made



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You don't even understand what "natural" means in the first place!



nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".



I think its pretty clear if you ask me.
Just because you found a slightly different definition, which by the way also partially agrees with me, doesn't mean your correct.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The only thing I have denied is that evolution is not a fact, and its never been proven, which is all true even by the sites standards I keep mentioning.

Why you insist on this dishonesty I have no idea. Look at every page in this thread and everyone that responds to you writes the same thing. You deny without debate, reason or supported argument everything you are offered. Delude yourself, who cares but why do you believe anyone else is prepared to enter the La La land you constructed to shield you from the real world that you cannot handle.
Your acting as though I made all this up, but like I have explained before, I'm not making anything up, I just read a few books, there is a difference.




Here is a classic case of you ignoring and discarding anything you are offered. Evolution is a word, it cannot render, create.
No its not, its a process that ultimately has the random option of rendering new species. Now if I'm wrong on this or you totally disagree, then evolution is false and cannont explain diversity.




It is not a bug, does not have arms eyes or intellect. It describes small changes over time and selected for by the environment. A new species evolves from an existing organism. NOTHING is created.
Yes this is just me embellishing the understanding of it. IMO in order for evolution to be able to do all of the things that you are claiming it can, it only makes sense to me in this way. Of course I wasn't trying to come across as being dishonest, I figured you would be smart enough to know I was exaggerating on purpose.




You do believe that we have a common ancestor with apes don't you? And you do believe that a creator did not do this right? So how was it done?

I know we have a common ancestor along with all the apes, we have the evidence. How was it done? Evolution how else? If you are asking how did life begin who knows and to be honest just like the theory of evolution, I don’t care. You can make up any fantasy you like for creation. ooops you have already
If evolution didn't create anything, then how did we end up with so many diverse species? Now I'm asking you the threads question because your denying it, not to smart of you.




And after many changes you basically can end up with a totally different species, or is all life the same species according to your understanding?

We categorise organisms into species. It’s what we do. The reality is life is life. We are related to all other life and the further back in time you go the closer the relationship gets.

So yes after many changes the organism 1 can no longer breed with organism 2. We call that a new species the fact is, it is life. It survives long enough to breed and pass on its advantages to the next generation.

This is basic stuff and after 400 pages you still do not understand it. Time to make you work for your living or for you to go.
So now you are admitting that after some time, the process of evolution can render new species. In essence, evolution can create new species. It doesn't matter that it takes a long time and it doesn't matter that its random and not planned out, well as far as we understand, the end result is a new species and the bottom line is new life is being created. In essence, evolution is creating new life, there is no two ways about this, if you believe that evolution exists, it is in all definitions creating new life.




Why don't you try leaving your personal references out of the subject for just once and address the topic!

When you misquote and blatantly try to make false claims about what I wrote I think calling you immature and dishonest is pretty tame. Questioning your age is because I cannot believe your poor behaviour on this thread.
Thats not even fair. I have believed everything that has been presented to me with proof, its you that is in denial about the things I have presented with proof.




But I don't have faith, I have documentation. Now you on the other hand believe in something that is not recreatable and can't be proven, and has no documentation so I would call that faith.

Yes you are correct. You show you have blind fanatical faith and that is all you have. To write evolution has no evidence shows how deep your denial goes. Again why are you on this thread?
Your the one that doesn't have documentation, if you ask me your the blind one.




I'm just going by whats in the definition, but as I'm learning you don't like to follow definitions of anything that proves evolution wrong.

Your definition did not state that the bible was clear historical document. You were unable to provide an opposing argument to mine that showed exactly that. So you lost the point: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this th



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I'm just going by whats in the definition, but as I'm learning you don't like to follow definitions of anything that proves evolution wrong.

Your definition did not state that the bible was clear historical document. You were unable to provide an opposing argument to mine that showed exactly that. So you lost the point: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.
You can run, but you can't hide.




First, you told me I was following them, now your claiming they would back away, so which is it?

You really cannot read can you? You blindly adapt what these people write to suit your made up religion. You dangle them in front of us like they are prophets. If you were ever to meet them and tell them your views they would find a reason to quickly go elsewhere.
Another bold assumption. Did you major in assumptionology?




Magic is just your way of saying that you don't understand, and I totally agree.

Nope. Read the definition I supplied.
If your definition isn't supernatural, then it doesn't apply.




I never said I know ALL of the truth, but I'm sure I have captured things that were missed by standard religion.

And the rest of what followed above shows you believe you know more than anyone else. A person that finds spelling a task. That cannot separate reality from fantasy and denies anything that challenges your silly homemade religion
So what, a lot of doctors have horrible hand writting, it doesn't mean they are any less of a doctor. I know my spellings bad, I'm not using a checker. Not being able to seperate reality from fantasy is entirely your opinion, and I don't have a homeade religion, you have way more of a belief of evoltuion then any religious person.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The only thing that ever got addressed was that target food can't be real because Ants show redundant activity, which was false because its still under natural circumstances.

You mentioned my name so I will address your points.

You and I are going to change things on this thread. You are going to supply in support of your claims a reasoned argument Supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links. Failure to do so will result in a new phrase.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment'

You seem hell bent on going full circle and revisiting your nonsense term 'target food'. You have one last chance.

Define target food. Provide a supporting argument for 'target food' supported by evidence links and quotes from those links.

My money is on you running like hell. Surprise me.
I allready supplied them, and told you I would no longer. You also allready acknowledged them as you were allready debating them, so your sort of stuck on claiming they were never isseud.
Your not going to be getting links on a term I made up.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





You aren't listening to me. If they dug up random chapters and had no way to tell where the book was from, it could easily be misinterpreted to be a true story. Of course I know what supernatural means, but aliens are not supernatural, and it DOES NOT MEAN the bible has any credibility whatsoever. What is so hard to understand about that?
Well you say "if" as though your assuming. Are you assuming? There is nothing wrong with that if you are providing you have a decent reason for doing so, so I would like to know what your reason is.

Random chapters, where did you get this from? Why random, again do you have a basis for assuming this? Do you have something that tells us that its not a true story? Or are you once again assuming? And yes aliens are supernatural.


Supernatural means that it's set in our world, about unexplained and paranormal things (ie, ghosts, aliens, vampires,demons,ESP).Fantasy means it's set in another universe, where magic and stuff is a everyday part of it,
www.free-press-release.com...




Stop changing the subject every time you can't prove your point. Holy crap. I didn't assume ANYTHING, I'm asking you to show me why the bible is credible and you can't do it. End of story.
I'm telling you that your making a preconcivied decision that the bible is false because its listed in the supernatural catagory. I'm telling you its real because it's listed in the supernatural section. So I guess what this comes down to is who can prove or disprove supernatural books as either. I would like to first ask you what you experience is reading books from this section.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your acting as though I made all this up, but like I have explained before, I'm not making anything up, I just read a few books, there is a difference.
Not acting at all. You made it all up. The two books you read are the 'bible' and 'Noddy goes to Toy Town'.


No its not, its a process that ultimately has the random option of rendering new species. Now if I'm wrong on this or you totally disagree, then evolution is false and cannont explain diversity.
'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Yes this is just me embellishing the understanding of it.
That equates directly with misleading dishonesty. Changing the evidence to suit your argument. You are a very big embellisher and that is nothing to feel pride in.



IMO in order for evolution to be able to do all of the things that you are claiming it can, it only makes sense to me in this way
I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION. I am sick and tired of your unsupported opinion. You’re boring me.


Of course I wasn't trying to come across as being dishonest, I figured you would be smart enough to know I was exaggerating on purpose.
No, you fully intended to be dishonest. Expecting others to see through it is not entering into honest debate. We have all been aware of your dishonesty for a very long time. Only you with your deluded self grandeur thought you had not been found out despite us telling you many times.

So what do you think you achieved by your dishonest approach?



If evolution didn't create anything, then how did we end up with so many diverse species? Now I'm asking you the threads question because your denying it, not to smart of you.
After your confession above on your dishonesty you have the cheek to write that. You have had this explained many times. Guess what your turn.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


So now you are admitting that after some time, the process of evolution can render new species.
So you did not read what I wrote. This is another example of you being dishonest. You are just a boring, untalented troll. Go back and read what I wrote and reply to that.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



edit on 29-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You can run, but you can't hide.
So you still cannot work out how to defend your claim that the bible is a 'clear historical document'. Pathetic but 100% you.


I see nothing but a poor childish (10 - 12 year old) attempts to troll and no on topic points at all. Given your admission of guilt in regards of your dishonesty you need to provide a subject on topic, supported by reasoned argument, links and quotes from those links.


'You have not provided any reasoned argument and/or no supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


BTW where is the retraction of the blatent lie you wrote about me



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





The only thing that ever got addressed was that target food can't be real because Ants show redundant activity, which was false because its still under natural circumstances.

You mentioned my name so I will address your points.

You and I are going to change things on this thread. You are going to supply in support of your claims a reasoned argument Supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links. Failure to do so will result in a new phrase.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment'

You seem hell bent on going full circle and revisiting your nonsense term 'target food'. You have one last chance.

Define target food. Provide a supporting argument for 'target food' supported by evidence links and quotes from those links.

My money is on you running like hell. Surprise me.
I allready supplied them, and told you I would no longer. You also allready acknowledged them as you were allready debating them, so your sort of stuck on claiming they were never isseud.
Your not going to be getting links on a term I made up.

If you believe telling you that your terms were meaningless nonsense was acceptance then you are helplessly deluded. Anyhow. You lost the debate then by refusal to debate and have for a second time for the very same reason. There will not be a third.

You retain the reward of: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.
well done.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 425  426  427    429  430  431 >>

log in

join