How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 29
21
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Dble [post
edit on 26-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
t is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries.

And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.
edit on 26-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
All things created by man go through an evolution process as does the mechanics of nature, life and everything.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


How is anyone going to reconcile the bible with the world we see around us?

Example. There are 2 creation myths in genesis. Each myth describes a different order of the creation of life. Neither myth has an order that matches the order seen in the fossil record.


the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries.

How are the two creation myths in genesis ever going to be reconciled with the fossil record?

Are you suggesting that harmony can be brought about by changing the bible so that it is in harmony with scientific discoveries?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Please provide some evidence for your folly.

You stated the following:
Again I'm asking, how do you know its a folly if I never shared it, or are you just trolling?




You post no evidence and you won't clarify what you have posted.
Thats because I'm not going to do your homework for you. You need to do your own research before you open your mouth and insert your other foot.




No evidence has been posted. Now you might not be so sure that your statement was correct. That's the problem here. You make statements that you have no idea are correct or not. You just make statements without regard to whether they are correct or not.
But how would you know that if I haven't shared anything, or are you just trolling?




I'll give you a few hints.
1. The animal you are referring to is possibly a bovine. Cows are mature females. Cows are female bovine and moose, and whales, and elephants.
2. Bear eat bovine.
Bovine is not a regular part of a bears diet.


yes sometimes they do. if theres no other meat

do bears eat cow

When there is no other meat. Now what do you think that means, when there is no other meat they are starving, which is what I have been saying all along. The only time a species steps out of its known diet is when its starving, and this link just proved that.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


ok lets cut to the chase : what is a bears regular diet ?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Again I'm asking, how do you know its a folly if I never shared it, or are you just trolling?

Simple.
1. Almost everything you do say is wrong.
2. You refuse to provide evidence to support it


Thats because I'm not going to do your homework for you. You need to do your own research before you open your mouth and insert your other foot.

The onus is on the claimant to support their statements. Despite numerous posters pointing that out you still seem unable to grasp that.


But how would you know that if I haven't shared anything, or are you just trolling?

It is very clear from the overwhelming evidence that has been posted against our claims that it is a folly. I am not surprised that you refuse to post any evidence since you already know there is none.


Bovine is not a regular part of a bears diet.

Not the question that was asked. You asked whether or not deer eat cow.


When there is no other meat. Now what do you think that means, when there is no other meat they are starving, which is what I have been saying all along. The only time a species steps out of its known diet is when its starving, and this link just proved that.

That site is pointless for answers. I bet you posted that yourself. Regardless if you did or not the point is bears do eat bovine as well as other meats.

According to the site the person that asked the question is also the only person to answer the question.
edit on 26-3-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Simple.
1. Almost everything you do say is wrong.
2. You refuse to provide evidence to support it
I have provided plenty of evidence on other threads, if you missd something, go fish.




The onus is on the claimant to support their statements. Despite numerous posters pointing that out you still seem unable to grasp that.
Sure, but your also making claims that my info is false, where is YOUR proof?




It is very clear from the overwhelming evidence that has been posted against our claims that it is a folly. I am not surprised that you refuse to post any evidence since you already know there is none.
My claims are backed up by a plethora of diets that have been observed. Not just mosquitoes and bears.




Not the question that was asked. You asked whether or not deer eat cow.
And what is your answer.




That site is pointless for answers. I bet you posted that yourself. Regardless if you did or not the point is bears do eat bovine as well as other meats.

According to the site the person that asked the question is also the only person to answer the question.
Of course I didn't post that, I don't have the time to observe bear and their diet habbits. But as you can see, you were wrong, they clearly only eat cow when there is no other meat, and rather then be a man and own up to the truth, you make the claim that you don't believe the claim and that I probably posted it. That is your folly for sure.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 





ok lets cut to the chase : what is a bears regular diet ?
As with any species, it can vary based on demographics. What would also help is to narrow down the type of bear as that will also limit the demographic choices as well.

Wiki probably has a good read on it.


Their carnivorous reputation not withstanding, most bears have adopted diets of more plant than animal matter and are completely opportunistic omnivores. Some bears will climb trees to obtain mast (edible vegatative or reproductive parts such as acorns); smaller species that are more able to climb include a greater amount of this in their diets.[25] Such masts can be very important to the diets of these species, and mast failures may result in long-range movements by bears looking for alternative food sources.[26] One exception is the polar bear, which has adopted a diet mainly of marine mammals to survive in the Arctic. The other exception is the giant panda, which has adopted a diet mainly of bamboo. Stable isotope analysis of the extinct giant short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) shows it was also an exclusive meat-eater, probably a scavenger.[27] The sloth bear, though not as specialized as the previous two species, has lost several front teeth usually seen in bears, and developed a long, suctioning tongue to feed on the ants, termites, and other burrowing insects they favour. At certain times of the year, these insects can make up 90% of their diets.[28] All bears will feed on any food source that becomes available, the nature of which varies seasonally. A study of Asiatic black bears in Taiwan found they would consume large numbers of acorns when they were most common, and switch to ungulates at other times of the year.[29]

When taking warm-blooded animals, bears will typically take small or young animals, as they are easier to catch. However, both species of black bears and the brown bear can sometimes take large prey, such as ungulates.[29][30] Often, bears will feed on other large animals when they encounter a carcass, whether or not the carcass is claimed by, or is the kill of, another predator. This competition is the main source of interspecies conflict. Bears are typically the apex predators in their ranges due to their size and power, and can defend a carcass against nearly all comers. Mother bears also can usually defend their cubs against other predators. The tiger is the only predator known to regularly prey on adult bears, including sloth bears, Asiatic black bears, giant pandas, sun bears and small brown bears

bear wiki

Because he is an opportunistic omnivore, this tells me he is in a phase 2 diet which means that his phase one diet would have or could have consisted of one food group, but as a result of that not being available for whatever reason, he is stuck in phase 2 of hunger.

A phase one diet would consist of him eating just about everything in a food group. This food group is relative to his Target Food which could be anything, but not available.

Another good example of what has happened here is in line with the common squirrel. His diet is almost identical in pattern. The squirrel starts out as an herbivore but in the season when that food is not available, he has to pick up an alternate food source, so he becomes an omnivore, he will eat insects and small rodents and other things when he is hungry.

He does however revert back to his phase one diet when the season comes back. This is a perfect example of proof that species are driven to locate a specific food and will only venture off the menu when they are starving. It's because of this we also know that they never experment with food. Patterns have never shown an experimental phase as a normal part of thier diet, only when they are starving.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have provided plenty of evidence on other threads, if you missd something, go fish.

So you have no evidence at all. No amount of whining is going to change that. The onus is on you to provide evidence. You have not done that. Your folly has been demolished by your sloth.


Sure, but your also making claims that my info is false, where is YOUR proof?

In this thread I pointed out hat you have no idea what is meant by science in evolution.
I pointed out that your claim about mosquitoes and a warm meal was wrong.
That's just a short list.


My claims are backed up by a plethora of diets that have been observed. Not just mosquitoes and bears.

Already we know you are wrong about bears and mosquitoes.


And what is your answer.

I already stated that deer eat meet.


Of course I didn't post that, I don't have the time to observe bear and their diet habbits. But as you can see, you were wrong, they clearly only eat cow when there is no other meat, and rather then be a man and own up to the truth, you make the claim that you don't believe the claim and that I probably posted it. That is your folly for sure.

I choose to not believe you. You've posted too many lies in this thread to be believed. You probably did post that. Regardless it is not a believable reference. Someone posted a statement and answer. It's a useless link.

You simply need to provide some evidence of your folly.


edit on 26-3-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



As with any species, it can vary based on demographics. What would also help is to narrow down the type of bear as that will also limit the demographic choices as well.

Wiki probably has a good read on it.

Do you have any idea what demographics means?


Because he is an opportunistic omnivore, this tells me he is in a phase 2 diet which means that his phase one diet would have or could have consisted of one food group, but as a result of that not being available for whatever reason, he is stuck in phase 2 of hunger.

Bears are opportunistic feeders. That phase whatever inane claptrap is meaningless junk. It is just unsubstantiated rubbish you have made up.

All you have done is spout useless gibberish. We all know it is gibberish. It's your ludicrous folly.

Look how idiotic this statement is:

This is a perfect example of proof that species are driven to locate a specific food and will only venture off the menu when they are starving.

It's meaningless to start.

"This is a perfect example of proof ..."


That's gibberish.


It doesn't make sense even outside the lunacy of Tooth's Folly.

The comes the irrational, unsubstantiated claims
"... species are driven to locate a specific food ... "


Any evidence for that nonsense?

More nonsense.

"... will only venture off the menu when they are starving."

Any evidence for that nonsense?

All you have are claims. These are nothing more than delusional fantasies of no value.
edit on 26-3-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


oh dear - which part of :


completely opportunistic omnivores.
do you fail to comprehend ?

you have even admitted that bear diets vary with season and local recources



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



If I invent/create a computer, believe me it will evolve just like all technologies, sciences, beliefs, organics, life, geology, the universe. Evolution is the goal of reaching perfection through trials that last billions of years and for the religious.... God created evolution. Embrace it. They go hand in hand. Cant have on without the other.

Evolution is not goal oriented. There is no goal of perfection in evolution.

Of course there is.
edit on 22-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


No; there isn't.

Evolution is based off of organisms making subtle mutations which -- one in a billion times -- are benficial to the organism by mere chance. This organisms thrives more than the ones without this mutation, and procreates; this passes on the genes and makes the mutation carry through to more generations until the species has been nearly completed replaced by the superior.

There is no goal, it's random mutations and the beneficial ones stick around because they allow the organisms to have a longer lifespan or higher quality of life and they are able to reproduce more because of it.

Humans have been poaching elephants for their tusks for years now. We've found that elephants are no longer being born with large tusks. This is not because the elephants magically grew smaller tusks so that they wouldn't be killed by poachers, it's because the elephants with the gene for long tusks were all killed off by poachers, disallowing the gene for long tusks in elephants to be passed on to their young.

Comprendez?
edit on 23-3-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)


I think you have to consider what intelligence is before you determine whether it is intelligence that somehow sculpted our universe. If you think you are intelligent, I suggest you look at another definition. You don't even question yourself and your opinions and that is the opposite of intelligence.



You see, I started with the presumption that I knew nothing, and these conclusions are that of research and understanding.

You started with the presumption that God exists and pieced together things that fit the mould so that you could keep saying it.

Congratulations; you're stubborn, unreasonable, and incorrect. It's been quite a journey, unfrontunately you still have ALL of your work ahead of you.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 


God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue. Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems.

You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable


Evolution is an essential part of the creation of life.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


How is anyone going to reconcile the bible with the world we see around us?

Example. There are 2 creation myths in genesis. Each myth describes a different order of the creation of life. Neither myth has an order that matches the order seen in the fossil record.


the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries.

How are the two creation myths in genesis ever going to be reconciled with the fossil record?

Are you suggesting that harmony can be brought about by changing the bible so that it is in harmony with scientific discoveries?


The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by definity
Too Good, I'm crying.


Do you think you could provide a short summary of what the video covers in your thread? I am interested in your topic, but it is very vague for me because I don't have access to youtube while I'm at work.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwisoop
 


its a collection of the 4 of the most assanine creationist fallacies , one is so silly they repeated it twice P

in short :

1 - any explaination other than biblical creationism is a fairy-tail

2 - everything has to have a creator ................. except god

3 - " if you open enough jars of peanut butter - you should see new life evolving " - i am not joking - thats thier claim

4 - a re-hash of 3

5 - a bizzare delusion that " the food industry depends on evolutionary theory being false "

thats it



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.


The 6 days of creation according to the bible might have been millions of years in length. Even if that were true we'd expect to see the pattern of creation in the fossil record. We do not. Those successive periods you refer to do not appear in the geological record of the planet.

The problem with the bible does not end with creation genesis, It extends to other parts such as the flood and exodus. Neither of those events appears to have happened. Neither of those 2 events has any evidence supporting them.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


That's hilarious. I've been creationist lectures and that's the sort of rubbish they feed to their audience. I was the only one that challenged the speaker by pointing out that the speaker was grossly misrepresenting Whewell and Hutton on the idea of uniformitarianism. After the speaker claimed I was ignorant of the issue and he was right I asked everyone to get out a pen and write down the term which I spelled out and invited anyone to use a computer or go to the library and look up the term to decide who was correct. After the speaker balked I repeated the spelling of the word and sat down. A few of the hundreds of people there did ask me later on about the issue. I told them they might be surprised if they looked up the term and invited them to do it instead of taking my word for it.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





So you have no evidence at all. No amount of whining is going to change that. The onus is on you to provide evidence. You have not done that. Your folly has been demolished by your sloth.
My theory has already been proven on other threads, the onus is on you to prove its a folly.




In this thread I pointed out hat you have no idea what is meant by science in evolution.
I pointed out that your claim about mosquitoes and a warm meal was wrong.
That's just a short list.
So you have pointed out a lot of things that were false, I'm not looking to have things pointed out, I'm looking for facts.




Already we know you are wrong about bears and mosquitoes.
That would be false again because you never produced any proof of the diet on the bear and I told you that my claim was that all units of a species eat the same. IE male units and female units.




I already stated that deer eat meet.
I wasn't looking for your opinionated claims, I'm looking for proof in a documentated diet.




I choose to not believe you. You've posted too many lies in this thread to be believed. You probably did post that. Regardless it is not a believable reference. Someone posted a statement and answer. It's a useless link.

You simply need to provide some evidence of your folly.
It's no different than the garbage your trolling.




Do you have any idea what demographics means?
Dont insult my intelligence.


demographics plural of dem·o·graph·ics
Noun
Statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it: "the demographics of book buyers".


demographics




Bears are opportunistic feeders. That phase whatever inane claptrap is meaningless junk. It is just unsubstantiated rubbish you have made up.

All you have done is spout useless gibberish. We all know it is gibberish. It's your ludicrous folly.

Look how idiotic this statement is:
Please share the amazing facts you have that prove its useless gibberish and a folly.




It's meaningless to start.

"This is a perfect example of proof ..."

That's gibberish.

It doesn't make sense even outside the lunacy of Tooth's Folly.

The comes the irrational, unsubstantiated claims
"... species are driven to locate a specific food ... "

Any evidence for that nonsense?
You will have to go back and read the threads that explain it all. It's in the section where I'm talking about how a species always reverts back to its original diet once its available again.




More nonsense.
"... will only venture off the menu when they are starving."

Any evidence for that nonsense?

All you have are claims. These are nothing more than delusional fantasies of no value.
Do you have something that proves its all nonsense or are you just trolling?
Species venture off menu when they are starving, as shown in the squirrel diet as an example and the link that I sent you that you refuse to believe in based on no reason.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join