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: 436
31
<< 433  434  435    437  438  439 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





No there aren't, you can't even grasp the idea of target food much less what it represents.


No one can tooth, no one can


Mostly because it's a MADE UP WORD


Here's your wanna-be logic:

1) Tooth looks for an argument against evolution.
2) Tooth ran out of arguments.
3) Tooth find a solution by making up a word.
4) Tooth arbitrarily defines that word and also randomly decides that word is a prerequisite of evolution.

Do you see why this is complete and utter nonsense? Please tell me you realize what utter garbage this is!!!




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Really? You maintained for many pages you had not made those terms up and now you rant on about how you made them up.

Shame you never defined them
If your wanting to backtrack, it would be wise to present some honest answers to my several questions that prove intervention.

Like the name of a species that has and always has had a natural relationship with man. No your wolf, bees, and house sparrow don't meet the ideas.

Or how about actually trying to come up with some target food. After all if I'm on the wrong track, and I don't know what I'm talking about, you should seriously have no problem proving me wrong. Or is that why you refuse to try?




Nope. That was a statement but I dont expect you to know that as you dont even know how to use quote marks.
The only thing your opinions have done is try to prove me wrong and fail. Which is all good with me.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Read your opinions got bored straight away. Very bored by the middle and bored to death by the end and still did not find one reasoned argument. One interesting point. Lots of your worthless opinion. It appears to be all you have

No further comment needed.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
No logic based argument from you again. Just your worthless snipes, lies and opinion which has been heard before many times and is sooooooooooooooo booooooooooooring.

You didnt even supply the link to the bibel.


No reason to reply, waste of time



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Read your opinions got bored straight away. Very bored by the middle and bored to death by the end and still did not find one reasoned argument. One interesting point. Lots of your worthless opinion. It appears to be all you have
Well come to think of it, you haven't come up with anything worth being an opinion either.




No logic based argument from you again. Just your worthless snipes, lies and opinion which has been heard before many times and is sooooooooooooooo booooooooooooring.

You didnt even supply the link to the bibel.

No reason to reply, waste of time


signature:


You had better point out that typo, its all you got. Only problem with my supposed lies is you have never proven any of them to be lies.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Harry Potter is NOT supernatural, and if you honestly believe that, I can see why you would shy away from a bible. All I'm trying to say is that something is not going to have the word natural in it if it is fake. For example go by some natural butter and prove it fake. Go buy some natural yogurt and prove it fake, go buy anything natural and prove it fake.



But didn't you say that those items weren't natural because they'd been processed.

Anyway, thats great, I have some natural butter (according to the label) right here beside me.......lets have a look at your supernatural butter and compare.

But you are right on one thing above, Harry Potter isn't supernatural. but the events described in the story are.
edit on 1-7-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If your wanting to backtrack, it would be wise to present some honest answers to my several questions that prove intervention.
What would be the point? I would win the discussion. You would lie, run or ignore everything you have been shown which disproves your nonsense and then pages later see you make the same claims.

I told you. You’re just so boring and predictable. You have nothing new and are too easy to beat; it is not even a contest.


Like the name of a species that has and always has had a natural relationship with man. No your wolf, bees, and house sparrow don't meet the ideas.
Oh dear that old lemon that you have been slaughtered in too many times. I would be visited by the child abuse team if I beat you as badly again as all the other times. As for you again dictating what species I can use I have already told you, your opinion is worthless.

Now let me see ................... Every animal/plant /insect on this planet has a natural relationship with mankind and vice versa. So which one should I choose? .............. I refer you back to the house sparrow, wolf, and bee's.

Once you have read my posts you can this time reply with a reasoned argument with supporting evidence and links with quotes from those links which you refused to do the other times you lost. Be prepared to receive another crushing defeat. Try not to bore me too much.


Or how about actually trying to come up with some target food.
How would I do that? No such thing as target food. Is it something like target golf only with food?


After all if I'm on the wrong track, and I don't know what I'm talking about, you should seriously have no problem proving me wrong.
I have had no problem proving you wrong in the past and present. I don’t expect you to provide a challenge that you have not already lost so don’t see a future for you.


Or is that why you refuse to try?
There needs to be a challenge. That is not you. You’re just plain boring and predictable.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well come to think of it, you haven't come up with anything worth being an opinion either.
One simple sentence and you cock it up
That was almost not boring.


You had better point out that typo, its all you got. Only problem with my supposed lies is you have never proven any of them to be lies.
Really? Well for a start I shouldn’t have to even suspect you of dishonesty this is meant to be a debate. As for giving you proof. I would have to be bothered and I aint bothered. See my face
do I look bothered? No. Face
Bothered. I aint bothered.

Oh yeah you wanted me to point out your error >>>>>>>> BIBEL



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





But didn't you say that those items weren't natural because they'd been processed.
Heck no, anything processed is NOT natural.




Anyway, thats great, I have some natural butter (according to the label) right here beside me.......lets have a look at your supernatural butter and compare.
I allready pointed out that anything supernatural is natural, which is not to say that anything natural is supernatural.




But you are right on one thing above, Harry Potter isn't supernatural. but the events described in the story are
I haven't followed him, but I guess that is possible.

It is possible to be exposed to supernatural things without yourself being supernatural.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


In the end it doesn't matter a bit because your entire definition and its relation to the theory of evolution is entirely MADE UP



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
 



I allready pointed out that anything supernatural is natural, which is not to say that anything natural is supernatural.
Really, you pointed that out and still expect an answer. Incredible.
I see why you went for a science major. As bad as you are at science your understanding of English is worse.


Almost not bored. Nah just kidding your still boring.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If your wanting to backtrack, it would be wise to present some honest answers to my several questions that prove intervention.

What would be the point? I would win the discussion. You would lie, run or ignore everything you have been shown which disproves your nonsense and then pages later see you make the same claims.

I told you. You’re just so boring and predictable. You have nothing new and are too easy to beat; it is not even a contest.
Lets bring up the things you have won so far.

You have won at being dishonest, you have also won through being dishonest, at least in your own mind.

I have yet to see a single subject that you enter in on fairly to try to win a discussion. However I must point out that it was you that made it clear to me that debates are not won, that isn't the goal. So the only thing I can think of is that you felt so threatened from the brilliant points of intervention that you shifted your goal to winning the debate because it was such a threat to the precious evolution.

You never won anything regarding target food. claiming you don't accept or acknowledge the definition is not a win situation, however I can see how in your mind that it is. You also never entered into an honest attempt to come up with any target food, thus forfieting so you actually lost that on. You also lost for claiming to not accept the definition. You are not the definition god that decides what definitions are or aren't accepted, thats just childish.

If there was an award for being childish, you surely would have won that one.

You never came up with a valid species that has a relationship with man. You claimed the wolf was one however the only thing I was able to find online were people getting bit by them, not a very good example I guess. Then later you came up with a quote that claimed we used to have a relationship with wolves, unfortunatly there is no proof, and I find it very hard to believe. What happened did end up on their crap list so now they bite us? Sorry I'm not naive like you.

Then there was the house sparrow. You claimed this was a species that has a relationship with man, yet you never were able to explain what that direct relationship was, aside from him living in our man made homes. The criteria wasn't to find one that we support, it was to find one that has a natural relationship with us that isn't forced by us. Looks like you lost that one as well. These were not hard tasks, I have no idea why you felt it would be ok to try to cheat, but I guess thats your style, if you can't win honestly then cheat.

Then there was the bees. The bees have a relationship with our crops, crops are not human so its invalid again.




Oh dear that old lemon that you have been slaughtered in too many times. I would be visited by the child abuse team if I beat you as badly again as all the other times. As for you again dictating what species I can use I have already told you, your opinion is worthless.

Now let me see ................... Every animal/plant /insect on this planet has a natural relationship with mankind and vice versa. So which one should I choose? .............. I refer you back to the house sparrow, wolf, and bee's.

Once you have read my posts you can this time reply with a reasoned argument with supporting evidence and links with quotes from those links which you refused to do the other times you lost. Be prepared to receive another crushing defeat. Try not to bore me too much.
Just to set the record straight, killing us, bitting us, harming us, rejecting us, and other forms of non acceptance are not what I'm considering to be a relationship. Your not going to win that on semantics, but nice try.




How would I do that? No such thing as target food. Is it something like target golf only with food?
Well put it to the test and find out.




I have had no problem proving you wrong in the past and present. I don’t expect you to provide a challenge that you have not already lost so don’t see a future for you.
There isn't one challange I have offered that you haven't tried to cheat on.




There needs to be a challenge. That is not you. You’re just plain boring and predictable.
Claiming that target food doesn't exist or at least the term, is cheating when you know good and well I have given you the difinition plenty of times. Your a dishonest cheater because its the only way you can win.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well come to think of it, you haven't come up with anything worth being an opinion either.

One simple sentence and you cock it up That was almost not boring.


You had better point out that typo, its all you got. Only problem with my supposed lies is you have never proven any of them to be lies.

Really? Well for a start I shouldn’t have to even suspect you of dishonesty this is meant to be a debate. As for giving you proof. I would have to be bothered and I aint bothered. See my face do I look bothered? No. Face Bothered. I aint bothered.

Oh yeah you wanted me to point out your error >>>>>>>> BIBEL



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Claiming that target food doesn't exist or at least the term, is cheating when you know good and well I have given you the difinition plenty of times.


Again, that's 100% worthless and a laughable argument!!


Why?

Because:

1) You can't just make up a random word.
2) You can't just claim that word is somehow a prerequisite for evolution without proving it...something you haven't done.

In short, you're talking out of your ass...as always



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No one can tooth, no one can

Mostly because it's a MADE UP WORD

Here's your wanna-be logic:

1) Tooth looks for an argument against evolution.
2) Tooth ran out of arguments.
3) Tooth find a solution by making up a word.
4) Tooth arbitrarily defines that word and also randomly decides that word is a prerequisite of evolution.

Do you see why this is complete and utter nonsense? Please tell me you realize what utter garbage this is!!!
Ya but its a made up term with a supplied definition so there is no excuse that someone can't come up with some examples. Unless I'm correct and there are none.

So I guess thats what this all comes down to, is there are no examples because I'm correct. Humans have no target food becasue we aren't from here.

Rather than be honest, colin refrained from even getting into this because he knew he had lost this one.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Looked and found no reasoned argument, no supporting evidence and no links with quotes from those links.

All that was on offer was the same festering corpse of a dead argument and worthless opinions that have been heard before. Many times. Boring.

Certainly no reason to respond further.

You have been dismissed.



edit on 1-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Again...you can't just make up words and then claim they're a prerequisite for evolution without providing any sort of objective evidence and proof to support that claim.


Here's a handy list of fallacies you keep on using over and over and over and over again: LINK



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Whats a matter, is there no question mark at the end?
I did not ask a question so why would there be? Keep up tooth.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I see !

So using the "tooth" method I can claim anything to be true or false simply by adding my own conditions.

Interesting concept, and I also see that the pre-condition I add doesn't really have to related to the subject matter at hand. In fact it would seem to be a bonus if I choose an area I know little about.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Assuming all stars are smaller than planets, I contend a geocentric model of the universe is a better explanation for planetary motion, by satisfying what I call "reference of sight."



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 433  434  435    437  438  439 >>

log in

join