Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm not going to quote bible parts knowing full on that all of you are just going to turn around after I go through the trouble and say that the bible is not a historical document, when you know that it is.

There's a big difference between something being a historical document, and something being historically accurate. Is this not a concern to you at all?

reply to post by itsthetooth


Prove a single thing you just said.

reply to post by Varemia

There's a big difference between something being a historical document, and something being historically accurate. Is this not a concern to you at all?

I wasn't aware that a supernatural test was ever able to be preformed to test it.

reply to post by Barcs


Wiki the diet of any species.

So we now have 2 threads, both talking about a MADE UP WORD that isn't real...and whenever one of tooth's nonsense claims get debunked in one, he hops over to the other one....rinse and repeat.

Great

FYI tooth, species change their diets as their ecosystems change. But of course you already know that from the other thread, you just chose to ignore it

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

There's a big difference between something being a historical document, and something being historically accurate. Is this not a concern to you at all?

I wasn't aware that a supernatural test was ever able to be preformed to test it.

So you're saying there is absolutely no bearing on reality in your theory? You have admitted that your "historical document" relies on events that cannot be observed in science. That kind of makes it unreliable as a source.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So we now have 2 threads, both talking about a MADE UP WORD that isn't real...and whenever one of tooth's nonsense claims get debunked in one, he hops over to the other one....rinse and repeat.

Great

FYI tooth, species change their diets as their ecosystems change. But of course you already know that from the other thread, you just chose to ignore it

Thats an interesting concept that I think I heard another time. The problem is that its never been proven anywhere, so its speculation.

reply to post by Varemia

So you're saying there is absolutely no bearing on reality in your theory? You have admitted that your "historical document" relies on events that cannot be observed in science. That kind of makes it unreliable as a source.

OMG, Supernatural elements are BEYOND the scope and understanding of science, not beneith them....

supernatural

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So we now have 2 threads, both talking about a MADE UP WORD that isn't real...and whenever one of tooth's nonsense claims get debunked in one, he hops over to the other one....rinse and repeat.

Great

FYI tooth, species change their diets as their ecosystems change. But of course you already know that from the other thread, you just chose to ignore it

Thats an interesting concept that I think I heard another time. The problem is that its never been proven anywhere, so its speculation.

I linked an entire scientific study PROVING IT in the other thread...you know...the one you ignore on purpose claiming it doesn't exist

Species change their diet, and that's NOT speculation, it's a FACT

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

So you're saying there is absolutely no bearing on reality in your theory? You have admitted that your "historical document" relies on events that cannot be observed in science. That kind of makes it unreliable as a source.

OMG, Supernatural elements are BEYOND the scope and understanding of science, not beneith them....

supernatural

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

So we're back to tooth's old "I know logically it doesn't make any sense...but unproven magic makes it possible" argument

reply to post by MrXYZ

I linked an entire scientific study PROVING IT in the other thread...you know...the one you ignore on purpose claiming it doesn't exist

Species change their diet, and that's NOT speculation, it's a FACT

Then you should have no problem producing a wiki on a species that clearly states a changing diet.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So we're back to tooth's old "I know logically it doesn't make any sense...but unproven magic makes it possible" argument

Supernatural events in the bible were witnessed and documented, and this is exactly why.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I linked an entire scientific study PROVING IT in the other thread...you know...the one you ignore on purpose claiming it doesn't exist

Species change their diet, and that's NOT speculation, it's a FACT

Then you should have no problem producing a wiki on a species that clearly states a changing diet.

I already linked some examples you blatantly ignored...here's another one: LINK

There are TONS of examples, and if you really cared about facts you'd spend 10min on google to look it up yourself. But you've proven over and over again that you don't give a rat's ass about facts...instead you try to argue for your fantasy religion with made up words

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So we're back to tooth's old "I know logically it doesn't make any sense...but unproven magic makes it possible" argument

Supernatural events in the bible were witnessed and documented, and this is exactly why.

Which makes it SUBJECTIVE evidence which obviously isn't proof...especially given the limited amount of knowledge people had back then. What's your proof that any of that happened? Do you simply read it and accept it as truth by saying "magic did it, I guess that makes sense"?

reply to post by MrXYZ

I already linked some examples you blatantly ignored...here's another one: LINK

But they are still eating in the same food group which means they lost a target food.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Which makes it SUBJECTIVE evidence which obviously isn't proof...especially given the limited amount of knowledge people had back then. What's your proof that any of that happened? Do you simply read it and accept it as truth by saying "magic did it, I guess that makes sense"?

Not when its witnessed by multiple people.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Which makes it SUBJECTIVE evidence which obviously isn't proof...especially given the limited amount of knowledge people had back then. What's your proof that any of that happened? Do you simply read it and accept it as truth by saying "magic did it, I guess that makes sense"?

Not when its witnessed by multiple people.

The number of CLAIMED observations doesn't change the FACT that it's SUBJECTIVE evidence

They also claimed stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong...like global floods and the living inside whales thing. You simply accept them by claiming magic is real...yet you completely fail at presenting the slightest bit of credible evidence

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I already linked some examples you blatantly ignored...here's another one: LINK

But they are still eating in the same food group which means they lost a target food.

Repeat after me tooth because I'm starting to really question if you ever passed high school biology: TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!

There's 2 possibilities:

A) You are merely trolling and having a laugh at people arguing over your MADE UP WORD.
B) You are actually so dumb you believe a MADE UP WORD is a sound argument.

Take your pick

reply to post by MrXYZ

The number of CLAIMED observations doesn't change the FACT that it's SUBJECTIVE evidence

Yes it does, because it was witnessed by several others.

They also claimed stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong...like global floods and the living inside whales thing. You simply accept them by claiming magic is real...yet you completely fail at presenting the slightest bit of credible evidence

That would be because supernatural things are outside the scope of science, and I have posted the definition half a dozen times to prove that but you either don't know how to read or are just being incredulous.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Repeat after me tooth because I'm starting to really question if you ever passed high school biology: TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!

There's 2 possibilities:

A) You are merely trolling and having a laugh at people arguing over your MADE UP WORD.
B) You are actually so dumb you believe a MADE UP WORD is a sound argument.

Take your pick

If you were right, someone would have presented something that proves how a species knows and understand the food that he chooses to eat, but you haven't, because you are wrong.