Can you prove evolution wrong

Haha I'm sorry I post again in here, but I found this utterly hilarious and perfectly sums up all of Itsthetooth's posts:

Not that it has any bearing on the fact this is just to again deflect attention from another question you cannot answer. I dont have a car. I dont pollute my enviroment when public transport gets me where I want to go.

Well thats good for you, so then my question would become, would you not throw trash out of your car.

It's great for you, that you don't have a car, but tell me. Would you throw trash out of the car window? Completely nonsensical and shows he didn't even read the quoted text. Good to see things are progressing here. It's like the 1000 tornados going through a junkyard sillyness.

SPECIATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN HUMANS, OMG!!!

Well if you knew what speciation actually was, you'd know it takes a very long time, and if we had observed it in humans, we wouldn't be humans.. But it would take hundreds of thousands of years to notice. If we survive that long, we'll be able to see in in comparing pictures from way back. Races of humans show speciation was happening. If we kept all the humans in the their original environments for another million years, they would have most likely broken off into a new species by then. We, instead, became a global society that relies on man made tools and inventions to survive, not physical attributes.

reply to post by iterationzero

So you're just taking it on someone else's authority that Darwin said something like that without actually checking the works of Darwin to see if he did and to make sure that they're using the quote in the correct context?

I'm sure you check every reference but I haven't read anything from darwin. So whats the problem now, is this guy wrong too? Is everyone wrong until you check the reference?

You keeps saying that "Darwin said ... ", but you can't seem to provide any evidence that Darwin actually said anything like that.

I'm quoting what someone else said, why have you proven them to be wrong?

If you didn't make it up then you should be able to provide the quote from Darwin with which of his writings it came from.

Quoting someone else is not the same as making it up. If you have any doubts, which I'm sure you do, look into it. Are you worried this guy is slandering darwin?

reply to post by Barcs

It's great for you, that you don't have a car, but tell me. Would you throw trash out of the car window? Completely nonsensical and shows he didn't even read the quoted text. Good to see things are progressing here. It's like the 1000 tornados going through a junkyard sillyness.

SPECIATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN HUMANS, OMG!!!

Well if you knew what speciation actually was, you'd know it takes a very long time, and if we had observed it in humans, we wouldn't be humans.. But it would take hundreds of thousands of years to notice. If we survive that long, we'll be able to see in in comparing pictures from way back. Races of humans show speciation was happening. If we kept all the humans in the their original environments for another million years, they would have most likely broken off into a new species by then. We, instead, became a global society that relies on man made tools and inventions to survive, not physical attributes

Ya I was referring to him throwing trash out his car window because he truly believes that mans ways have no impact on this planet. I like how you have selective reading and only read the parts you were interested in. It's not my fault you came in on the middle of the conversation.
As far as specieation, you need to read up more about your own evolutionism, because I thought speciation has actually been witnessed in small molecular organisms, including viruses, just not in humans.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm sure you check every reference but I haven't read anything from darwin. So whats the problem now, is this guy wrong too?

I'm sure that a keen investigative mind like yours already knows this, but yes -- it's called checking your sources. If you're going to quote a video that claims to be quoting Darwin, you should check and see two things:

1. Did Darwin actually say what the video is claiming?
2. Did the video use the quote in its proper context?

Is everyone wrong until you check the reference?

Why would you assume that something is right unless you've checked it out for yourself?

I'm quoting what someone else said, why have you proven them to be wrong?

You haven't done the legwork to see if they were correct, so I don't really need to.

Quoting someone else is not the same as making it up.

You're right. Making it up would be dishonest. Quoting someone who is quoting Darwin without checking to make sure that the someone in the middle is quoting Darwin accurately and in context is just stupid.

If you have any doubts, which I'm sure you do, look into it.

How can I look into it when you can't provide the actual quote or the source for it?

Are you worried this guy is slandering darwin?

Slandering? No. But I'm willing to bet that it's an example of quote-mining. Darwin is a favorite target of creationists because they don't seem to realize that science didn't stop in the 1850's.

reply to post by iterationzero

How can I look into it when you can't provide the actual quote or the source for it?

I gave you the link I was quoting it from.

Slandering? No. But I'm willing to bet that it's an example of quote-mining. Darwin is a favorite target of creationists because they don't seem to realize that science didn't stop in the 1850's.

I doubt if thats the case here because this guy makes some current comparisons.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero

 

How can I look into it when you can't provide the actual quote or the source for it?

I gave you the link I was quoting it from.

Slandering? No. But I'm willing to bet that it's an example of quote-mining. Darwin is a favorite target of creationists because they don't seem to realize that science didn't stop in the 1850's.

I doubt if thats the case here because this guy makes some current comparisons.

You posted yet another pseudo-scientific source that has no bearing in reality

LINK

Just to show how incredibly biased that clown site is, it has other "scientific" gems like this one:



Clearly, a trustworthy scientific website

No wonder you're so confused regarding reality if you get your "information" from comedy websites like the one you linked

reply to post by MrXYZ


I actually watched the video again, and he actually has Darwins book open for you to see it as he is quoting it.
Its video 4 at exactly 3.33. So it was a quote from darwin.

Its funny how you call the video pseudo science, he is sayin the same thing about evolutionism.

reply to post by itsthetooth

True but you don't frequently hear of other species dying from unhealthy water conditions and if you do, its because man did it.

Below took 2 minutes to google. Why have you not tried it? Do they not cover this in google god?

health.utah.gov...

B) ANIMALS - The toxins are potent neuromuscular blocking agents in animals.
1) A characteristic animal death caused by one kind of blue-green algae (Aphanizomenon) includes
irregular respirations, spastic twitching, loss of coordination, violent tremors, gaping mouth, and
death by respiratory failure. The onset depends on species. Death may be rapid (animals die before
they leave the water) or delayed 6 to 24 hours.
2) Animals do not like to drink the contaminated water, but will if sufficiently thirsty.
C) The effects seem to be much more serious in animals than in humans. It is not known if this is due to
lower ingested doses in humans or differences in the reaction of animals to the toxin as compared to
humans.

If your referring to our tool making hands, dont you think its a little redundant to have to make tools with tools?

The more complex the tool the more tools you use to make it. Even a flint arrowhead was made with another tool. Again showing your complete ignorance of the world you live in.

Well thats good for you, so then my question would become, would you not throw trash out of your car.

I thought you were able to disconnect and look at the real picture. I told you I have no car and the reason why. Are you telling me you cannot answer your own question or you did not read my answer?

Well if your referring to the sparrow, that was human inflicted, so it doesn't count. I want something that isn't man made.

You know full well I was reffering to the list of animals we interact with which you have avoided and continue to avoid addressing.

Ya and Ill bet they live to be 30 and die early. But no, I guess your right, they don't need to live like we cause living till 30 is normal.

That is your guess. Regardless 30 is a lot longer than as you maintain, dead before adulthood. If that is your answer to the bushman who drinks untreated water and does not drink milk and interacts with wildlife and enviroment you failed miserably.

Use your head man, we only mate for 20 years, usually between 20 and 40 and your chopping 10 years off that. You know it doesn't matter to me at this point if you honestly believe a virus made us, or that god made us. Use some common sense and realize that we are an intelligent design. Do you really think our design was only suppose to live 30 years? Your cracking me up man.

A female is capable of childbearing from around 14. Over 30 her risk of death or a failed pregnacy increases. So yet again you are wrong.
Please do not try to lecture me on common sense when you show such a complete lack of any. Common or otherwise.

Well you do look at the evidence, but only what you have in your hand.

Agreed for once

You need to venture out of the box and start taking a look at other life and compare things to humans minus the intelligent factor and learn for yourself what is going on. We were dumped here knowing that our intelligence would save us, and for the most part, it has, but on the flip side, we are screwed.

You mean to ignore any evidence to the contary and join you in La La land? No thanks to sink that low I would need a labotomy.

No I had it right, we were monkeys, we are currently primates, and your evolution buddys proved me wrong on this, because wiki says we are primates.

You wrote we are monkeys, I corrected you.

Well I have allready explained this a few times, but I will do it again just for you. Diversity can EASILY be explained with one or more creators, in a lab, with a equipment, and a lot of toys, and a lot of desire to make things.

That is not an explanation. If diversity is so easy please expand and offer evidence. Asking a lot from you I know as I believe you probably break out in a rash at the very mention of it.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Itsthespoof said:

Ya I was referring to him throwing trash out his car window because he truly believes that mans ways have no impact on this planet. I like how you have selective reading and only read the parts you were interested in. It's not my fault you came in on the middle of the conversation.
As far as specieation, you need to read up more about your own evolutionism, because I thought speciation has actually been witnessed in small molecular organisms, including viruses, just not in humans.

What a stupid statement. I chose not to have a car because of the pollution and travel by public transport instead. How does that translate to 'I believe man has no impact on this planet.'???????

You then lecture Barcs on selective reading. Deluded is not a strong enough description of you.

Below took 2 minutes to google. Why have you not tried it? Do they not cover this in google god?

health.utah.gov...

B) ANIMALS - The toxins are potent neuromuscular blocking agents in animals.
1) A characteristic animal death caused by one kind of blue-green algae (Aphanizomenon) includes
irregular respirations, spastic twitching, loss of coordination, violent tremors, gaping mouth, and
death by respiratory failure. The onset depends on species. Death may be rapid (animals die before
they leave the water) or delayed 6 to 24 hours.
2) Animals do not like to drink the contaminated water, but will if sufficiently thirsty.
C) The effects seem to be much more serious in animals than in humans. It is not known if this is due to
lower ingested doses in humans or differences in the reaction of animals to the toxin as compared to
humans

This is a really cool quote only problem is I seriously doubt if blue green alge is the most common problem in contaminated water. At best its one of a few and I'll bet the fact that this type affects animals more than humans is also rare.

The more complex the tool the more tools you use to make it. Even a flint arrowhead was made with another tool. Again showing your complete ignorance of the world you live in.

Which also depends on the intelligence of the species. So your saying as an example that a monkey could also make a socket set but would have to go through 6 sets of tools to get to the point.

I thought you were able to disconnect and look at the real picture. I told you I have no car and the reason why. Are you telling me you cannot answer your own question or you did not read my answer?

Its all could have, would have, should have which is why I'm asking.

You know full well I was reffering to the list of animals we interact with which you have avoided and continue to avoid addressing.

Every animal you brought up that has a relationship with man was only because it was subject to manipulation from man.

That is your guess. Regardless 30 is a lot longer than as you maintain, dead before adulthood. If that is your answer to the bushman who drinks untreated water and does not drink milk and interacts with wildlife and enviroment you failed miserably.

I didn't say they ALL live to be 30,

A female is capable of childbearing from around 14. Over 30 her risk of death or a failed pregnacy increases. So yet again you are wrong.
Please do not try to lecture me on common sense when you show such a complete lack of any. Common or otherwise.

And you once again win the booby prize for totaly missing the point. Your like so beneath this that you can't even grasp whats going on. I'll spell it out for you. Don't you think its a little weird that we only mate in those few years of our lives, while other species are a lot more active through out there life span?

Agreed for once

You must be the "If I can't see it" then it can't be evol monkey.

You mean to ignore any evidence to the contary and join you in La La land? No thanks to sink that low I would need a labotomy.

It wasn't my suggestion but I can agree that one could help at this point.

You wrote we are monkeys, I corrected you.

No you were saying we are NOT primates, I was correcting you.

That is not an explanation. If diversity is so easy please expand and offer evidence. Asking a lot from you I know as I believe you probably break out in a rash at the very mention of it.

Not at all, its a lot easier to visualize then the grand illusion of theorys that support evolutionism.

reply to post by colin42

What a stupid statement. I chose not to have a car because of the pollution and travel by public transport instead. How does that translate to 'I believe man has no impact on this planet.'???????

You then lecture Barcs on selective reading. Deluded is not a strong enough description of you.

Oh I see so if you take the bus and choose to throw trash out the window its ok because your still helping the enviroment due to using the bus.

www.youtube.com...

Says it all. How does a cell mutation form into a fully functioning Motor ?

reply to post by mazzroth

www.youtube.com...

Says it all. How does a cell mutation form into a fully functioning Motor ?

This has creator all over it. Unless evolutiionists want to step up at this point and say that evolutionism is smart enough to make motors.

reply to post by mazzroth


Really? You're actually going to go with Behe's "irreducible complexity?" Those claims have been debunked on this site so many times its ridiculous. In fact TalkOrigins' has an entire section to its site devoted to illustrating why Behe is wrong.

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe: Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design?

Let me just leave this here for the Darwin worshipers..

reply to post by itsthetooth

This is a really cool quote only problem is I seriously doubt if blue green alge is the most common problem in contaminated water. At best its one of a few and I'll bet the fact that this type affects animals more than humans is also rare.

Really is that so. Your problem here is that you stated:

True but you don't frequently hear of other species dying from unhealthy water conditions and if you do, its because man did it.

My answer was to that. So again a 2 minute google showed you to be incorrect. It shows that only humans cant drink untreated water is incorrect. Also that man is responsible for it every time. So in short, you are wrong again.

Which also depends on the intelligence of the species. So your saying as an example that a monkey could also make a socket set but would have to go through 6 sets of tools to get to the point.

So you are wrong again and so bring in a straw man to deflect on how wrong your are. You said:

If your referring to our tool making hands, dont you think its a little redundant to have to make tools with tools?

My answer was correct and addressed your comment. Yours as usual does not.

Its all could have, would have, should have which is why I'm asking.

But you seem willing to make leaps of faith to get to 'we are not from here.' but cannot use logic to determine my answer regarding littering. Why is that?

Every animal you brought up that has a relationship with man was only because it was subject to manipulation from man.

No. Your original statement was:

Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,

My response and list showed you were wrong yet again.

I didn't say they ALL live to be 30,

Your sqirming again. You wrote:

Ya and Ill bet they live to be 30 and die early.

Adding ALL does not change your original statement. You also have blanked the fact that the bushman lives without modern medicine, processed food, water and milk. You seem totally unwilling to address this even though it directly opposes your stance that without those things humans would die before adulthood. Why?

And you once again win the booby prize for totaly missing the point. Your like so beneath this that you can't even grasp whats going on. I'll spell it out for you. Don't you think its a little weird that we only mate in those few years of our lives, while other species are a lot more active through out there life span?

You had better hold onto that booby prize. Our life span is a lot longer than many of the other species. At the end of our LONG fertile period and into old age our society looks after our ederly.

Other animals do not get that care. As they age they become more open to disease and predation. We also have a greater success rate with raising our young as opposed to the high mortality rate with the young of most other animals. Which is contary to your views but true none the less.

You must be the "If I can't see it" then it can't be evol monkey.

Try to get it right. I am the 'If you can show no evidence then its just a story monkey'

It wasn't my suggestion but I can agree that one could help at this point.

I bet you can

No you were saying we are NOT primates, I was correcting you.

How idiotic are you?

Not at all, its a lot easier to visualize then the grand illusion of theorys that support evolutionism.

Sorry you answered my previous point. You are that idiotic. Thanks.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

What a stupid statement. I chose not to have a car because of the pollution and travel by public transport instead. How does that translate to 'I believe man has no impact on this planet.'???????

You then lecture Barcs on selective reading. Deluded is not a strong enough description of you.

Oh I see so if you take the bus and choose to throw trash out the window its ok because your still helping the enviroment due to using the bus.

Are you really as dense as you are appearing?

Ask yourself if a person makes a decission to travel by a less poluting form of transport for that reason rather than a private vehicle would that same person then litter his enviroment for no other reason than lazyness?

This sort of nonsense only devalues your input into this discussion even lower than it is now. If you cannot work out the direct answer to you question then I believe you have been shown to be wrong yet again as you have no ability to stand back and see the bigger picture. In fact your are blinded by your fantasy.

reply to post by vasaga


From watching the video and reading its description I am assuming that you are trying to attack the credibility of darwin. If you would like to do a bit of reading to see what is actually known, taught, and freely available to anyone who cares to look you can go here.
What is the history of Evolutionary Theory

reply to post by itsthetooth

I gave you the link I was quoting it from.

Except that there's nothing on the site you linked to that you could have paraphrased in the way you did. You really have no idea if Darwin said anything like that or not and, if he did, what context he said it in.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I finally had a chance to go back and look at the main page of The Darwin Papers. It's like a slightly more coherent yet more paranoid version of the Time Cube website.