Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

But the main point is, that your now admitting that its there.

Admitting what is there. Your dishonest attempt to decieve? Your dishonest attempt to claim you provided a definition when you did not. You are really grasping at straws. Colossal failure.

Just because YOU choose not to accept it as a definition, does not mean that its not.

Like I wrote. If you think that dross and ignorance constitutes a definition then you have no idea what a definition is.

YOU are NOT the grand master of definition passing.

I may not be. But I have enough education to see what you posted in the deceptive way you did was bull shine and dishonest. No definition there, not even close.

You used to lie and cheat by saying I never offered a definition, now you have admitted that I have.

Nope: you proved you do not have a clue what a definition is. You show you have no understanding of English and your attempt to deceive was as dishonest as it gets.

'target food' has not been defined and remains not valid in this thread until you do. You are dismissed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by lolwuttermelons

 

And thats not even the basics, there is a lot more rubbish in evolution that makes even less sense. Evolution is NOT a proven theory, and I keep telling these guys that the main site they keep directing me to even indicates that evolution is a series of hypothesis and theories, and they don't believe me.

www.talkorigins.org...

Right in the first sentence.

And as others have already explained a gazillion times, OF COURSE the theory encompasses several hypotheses. Every time a scientist formulates a hypothesis related to evolution it's part of that field...but hey, let's just pretend facts don't matter and reading past the first line isn't important, right?

By the way, your reply makes it seem as if you're talking to yourself. Got yourself a little imaginary friend, didn't we?

reply to post by MrXYZ

I'd be more ashamed at attacking a theory I so obviously don't understand if I were you

LINK

We have tons of objective evidence supporting the theory (fossil record, DNA, migratory trends, etc.) and are even ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to accurately predict future outcomes...

Nice display of ignorance though

That is like a seriously bat crazy claim. I wanna know how evolution is used in medicine when evolution isn't even a witnessed theory. I know for a fact that macroevolution has never been witnessed. Are you sure your not embelishing this a tad, its bat crazy for sure.

reply to post by itsthetooth

To late, you allready acknowledged both of them. Get over it, and move on.

10 - 12 years old at best. How was school today?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'd be more ashamed at attacking a theory I so obviously don't understand if I were you

LINK

We have tons of objective evidence supporting the theory (fossil record, DNA, migratory trends, etc.) and are even ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to accurately predict future outcomes...

Nice display of ignorance though

That is like a seriously bat crazy claim. I wanna know how evolution is used in medicine when evolution isn't even a witnessed theory. I know for a fact that macroevolution has never been witnessed. Are you sure your not embelishing this a tad, its bat crazy for sure.

God you're so wrong it's laughable...

Evolution applied in modern medicine

Macroevolution observed both in the lab and nature

Another example of witnessed evolution

Do you know what's really crazy? The fact that all this has been posted a gazillion times in replies to your garbage claims...yet you continue to ignore facts. It's almost as if you're brainwashed

reply to post by itsthetooth

To late, and to bad colin, you allready acknowledged my definition. I could really care less if you accept them or not, your not a good source.

You protest too much. 'target food' has no meaning and is not acceptable until you define it. You have demonstrated you cannot. Define it or get over it. You are not going to get around it.

reply to post by MrXYZ


How are you guys going to be so rude to someone just setting foot on this thread. How do you KNOW he has no science background? Just because he doesn't believe in your bat crazy theory of evolution?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How are you guys going to be so rude to someone just setting foot on this thread. How do you KNOW he has no science background? Just because he doesn't believe in your bat crazy theory of evolution?

Because he's not applying scientific method for his arguments. And I'm not mocking him/her for not knowing...I'm mocking him/her because he/she acts all arrogant attacking a theory they CLEARLY don't understand.

"Suicidal rats"...do I have to say more

Not knowing isn't the problem, but being ignorant towards facts is...it's also kind of against this site's mantra.

Either way, I'm attacking the content of his posts, not the person writing it. He could be a lovely person I might even like to go for a beer with...but when it comes to evolution (and science) he's clearly clueless.

reply to post by idmonster

Actually...what I realy want to know is;

If intervention is right, and diversity is explained by the creator using spare parts.......

WHERE ARE ALL THE SPARE PARTS........!!

I never said spare parts that was something that someone else made up. What I said was recycled parts, there is a difference.

To answer your question on how this would have been done, I can only say how WE might understand how it could have been done.
Through the DNA process called... polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a common laboratory technique, employs such artificial synthesis in a cyclic manner to amplify a specific target DNA fragment from a pool of DNA.

en.wikipedia.org...

By utilizing only the sections of DNA that someone wants, it might be possible to start with a base DNA section and either build from there, or splice in other sections. It sure looks like something that happened to human DNA anyhow.

PCR is perhaps the key in understanding why all DNA seems to have relation. If a creator wanted to just keep making new life, and start with a base package, thats how he could do it.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Sounds to me like the differential reproduction of molecules.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never said spare parts that was something that someone else made up.

You mean like you made up target food?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'd be more ashamed at attacking a theory I so obviously don't understand if I were you

LINK

We have tons of objective evidence supporting the theory (fossil record, DNA, migratory trends, etc.) and are even ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to accurately predict future outcomes...

Nice display of ignorance though

That is like a seriously bat crazy claim. I wanna know how evolution is used in medicine when evolution isn't even a witnessed theory. I know for a fact that macroevolution has never been witnessed. Are you sure your not embelishing this a tad, its bat crazy for sure.

This couldnt get any better...........

First off........tooth has no idea what this guys beliefs are....only that he think rats and fish have suicidal tendencies....and yet defend his position vehemntly.

Second....tooth has actual replied to a comment mrxyz made to somebody else as if the post was directed at him...

I am definately calling oen and the same..

LMAO

reply to post by itsthetooth

Of course we have food, we probably have the largest menu on this planet, but that doesn't mean one single item was intended for us to eat. Unlike the ant is to the anteater, or the bananna is to the ape, or the honey is to the bee.

Of course all of your post is just your unsupported opinion based on an unsupported fantasy but I feel I need to point something out. What do bees eat

Actually bees eat honey. Why else would they make it? They also eat pollen. They pollinate by accident while they fly from flower to flower. They make honey by eating the nectar they gather then it mixes with enzymes and they regurgitate it as honey and store it.

So they make honey and store it in honey combs that they also make.

Banana is to an ape? What ape, there are many? Do you think any ape only eats bananas? You are very ignorant.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Actually...what I realy want to know is;

If intervention is right, and diversity is explained by the creator using spare parts.......

WHERE ARE ALL THE SPARE PARTS........!!

I never said spare parts that was something that someone else made up. What I said was recycled parts, there is a difference.

To answer your question on how this would have been done, I can only say how WE might understand how it could have been done.
Through the DNA process called... polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a common laboratory technique, employs such artificial synthesis in a cyclic manner to amplify a specific target DNA fragment from a pool of DNA.

en.wikipedia.org...

By utilizing only the sections of DNA that someone wants, it might be possible to start with a base DNA section and either build from there, or splice in other sections. It sure looks like something that happened to human DNA anyhow.

PCR is perhaps the key in understanding why all DNA seems to have relation. If a creator wanted to just keep making new life, and start with a base package, thats how he could do it.

So in a very short sentence...you're assuming

And I didnt ask how this might be done. I have very little interest in your delusions other than mocking them for my own amusement.

You didnt read my post a few pages back (there was a secret word in there that you were supposed to start you reply with to prove you read it) and I have no confidence that you read any replies...so as I stated...purely for my own amusement.....and the amusement of those who realise that your not ignorant or misinformed...just a fanatical moomin.

reply to post by colin42

Easy. Abduction and cattle mutilation is explained. Diversity is explained. We are all bits of cows grown in people

You couldn't even begin to understand, with your limited thinking skills. You probably think preditors did it all.

Cattle mutilations could be abductions from an alien race that is studying cattle here on earth because they know that cattle is indigenous to another planet. So the concearn here is how is it that this species was smart enough to travel to another planet. At least thats one idea. The others are obvious, that they are wanted for medical reasons.

Aliens like to stay ahead of the game by disecting any other intelligent life and to make sure they have an upper hand in the event they ever show up at their door.

We do the same thing with forgien countries, excepet the disecting part because we are all human.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So wait...your argument now is that you're disappointed that unlike some (!!!) animals we don't only have to rely on a single food item???

Ahahahaha, this is getting weirder and weirder.

Here, let me try too...

Intervention is impossible because of hyperdimensional friction particles. Those particles clearly prove intervention is wrong.

Oh, you want the definition of "hyperdimensional friction particles"?

They're making it impossible for aliens to exist because well...they are particles that prevent any kind of life outside of earth's atmosphere. In fact, their definition is "particles that make intervention impossible". Where did I get that definition from? Nowhere! I made it up...but please, pretty please with a cherry on top...believe me, it's a valid argument against intervention

Just when I thought you were simply ignorant about facts you post stuff that make it a coin toss whether you're actually ignorant or simply a jokster account pulling our leg

And I would agree with you except that aliens tend to more about science then we do, so there you have it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Aliens like to stay ahead of the game by disecting any other intelligent life and to make sure they have an upper hand in the event they ever show up at their door.

Makes total sense...because those super advanced aliens who had the technology to travel maaaaaaany many light years clearly have to abduct and study those cows so they have the "upper hand" when shtf

Don't wanna give those cows an advantage before the fight even starts.

By the way, tooth, you claimed evolution isn't used in modern medicine, and that macroevolution has never been witnessed. The links I posted CLEARLY show how wrong you are. Are you at least gonna admit that, or are you simply going to continue facts?

Honestly, I think Saturday Night Live moved into this thread

reply to post by MrXYZ


And again these are all assumed to be from the cause of evolution, there is no proof.

reply to post by colin42

So wait...your argument now is that you're disappointed that unlike some (!!!) animals we don't only have to rely on a single food item???

Ahahahaha, this is getting weirder and weirder.

Here, let me try too...

Intervention is impossible because of hyperdimensional friction particles. Those particles clearly prove intervention is wrong.

Oh, you want the definition of "hyperdimensional friction particles"?

They're making it impossible for aliens to exist because well...they are particles that prevent any kind of life outside of earth's atmosphere. In fact, their definition is "particles that make intervention impossible". Where did I get that definition from? Nowhere! I made it up...but please, pretty please with a cherry on top...believe me, it's a valid argument against intervention

Just when I thought you were simply ignorant about facts you post stuff that make it a coin toss whether you're actually ignorant or simply a jokster account pulling our leg

You allready accepted it which is good enough for me.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Aliens like to stay ahead of the game by disecting any other intelligent life and to make sure they have an upper hand in the event they ever show up at their door.

How do you know this...you state it with such certainty?

And I would agree with you except that aliens tend to more about science then we do, so there you have it.

and this?

would you be assuming then? the only way this isnt an assumption is a 3rd kind encounter!

And again these are all assumed to be from the cause of evolution, there is no proof.

But then...you wouldnt make an assumption without some hard and fast first hand documented evidence....would you?


(BTW Please allow it in------evolution doesnt CAUSE anything.....evolution is the result of many causes. This is the definition that we are all working with. we all agree. Lets stick with it and try not to look ignorant)




OFF TOPIC POST BUT EXCITING------POSSIBLE GOD PARTICAL SIGHTING----NEWS AT 11(on wednesday)