Science against evolution

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats just a fomalitiy so that you can claim there is no intent within the process.

Again you show that you do not understand the meaning of evolution as used by science. It certainly isn't isn't the weird usage you've chosen.

Well a few people including yourself and indicated so, but when I call you on it for proof, you seem to disapear. I would like to see something that claims Pye is wrong about human genetics or even the star child for that matter.

The onus is on Pye and he has shown nothing. I already posted the strong evidence against it being anything other than human. Here we go again to the close minded that believe in the lies posted by Pye.
en.wikipedia.org...

The observed diets just so happen to be limited to wiki, not that it has to be that way. Any diet will do, provided it is accurate. In that not a single person has come up with an alternate claim as to how our feeding works within a species. There are to many patterns that are not afforded in the realm of evolution. As an example, all species would appear to know before hand, what food they are seeking based on the fact that they all choose the same food and never experiment. So as you can see, your WRONG. And I keep explaining this to you but your not getting it.

Clueless comments not connected to reality. I already have shown that 100% of your claims were wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And everytime I call you out on this and ask that you prove this point by showing me several diets that explain experimentation, you run and hide.

Another bald-faced lie. I've shown that every animal you have claimed has a limited diet is wrong. That includes your failure with the abalone.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Pye is a fraud with a skull that is human and has been shown to be just that.

Repeating and believing in outdated biased results that confirm your bias, are we? He has not been shown to be a fraud. It has been shown that the MOTHER was human, due to mitochondrial DNA. But the nuclear DNA, which contains DNA from both parents, has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog.

I know you won't be convinced anyway, but whatever.

Never really intended to post, but had to. Pye has never named the labs (or the geneticist) that are supposedly used, the results he claims have never been peer reviewed or replicated. In conclusion :

"has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog" is far from factual unless you choose to place blind belief in Pye's words without anything or anyone else to corroborate them.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You still intend to remain ignorant of the subject you childishly believe you can prove wrong.

A species does not evolve into anything. It evolves.

So then by your own admission, evolution does NOT prove diversity?

As I wrote the same dishonest tooth. A species evolves. We categorise them into different species when they can no longer breed with each other.

The only admission here is that you cannot and will not understand that simple fact. The only one that falls for your dishonesty is you.

Thats because your a poor scientist, you believe in testing matters and not testing them on an equivical manner. Where did you get the supernatural element from? Oh wait, you didn't, because you think it means nothing.

Ah the words of a science major You are correct I don’t factor in magic, true. You do so show that magic exists.

It's pathetic that you think that man knows all and is all. It's as though you don't even have room to learn, yep, sounds like you.

What is pathetic is your lies and straw man arguments to cover your ignorance and delusion. Now demonstrate this magic you put so much importance on. Explain how a man lives inside a whale.

No one told you food evolves with us. You may have been told everything evolves. The fact is you do not have the intellect to understand a simple concept, but then you have magic.

Thats what I was told and I'm sticking to it.

Of course you do, you always hide behind lies and this is a case in point.

Then our scientists engineers must be five year olds because we still do this today. As in the example I gave about us first creating the wheel for a car, then someone took that wheel and applied it to the use of a bicycle, and then an air plane. So as you can see, recycled parts is not far fetched even by our standards.

Only problem is you are not building cars. Now show the evidence for your claim. Show me what parts of you have been recycled. and I don’t mean your crazy lies

Keep talking yourself into a corner. The fact is Ants farm naturally, and we don't

And here you show again you have no idea what naturally means

There is nothing natural about altering the genetics of food to our liking,

And that has been the case for what, 10 years. Now explain the last 6000 years.

nothing natural about plumbed water to feed the crops because mother nature does not cut it

We provide water because we grow food intensively so the process of watering may be ARTICFICIAL but it is still natural i.e. not against nature.

Nothing natural about mechanical planting, or mechanical fertilizing.

Again that has been true for around 200 years now explain the last 6000 years

The fact is that not even the food it yeilds is natural.

Isn’t it? Explain with evidence to back your nonsense claim

Now we are working on GMO's I'll bet you think that is the most natural thing in the world.

It must be. Your aliens seem to think so.

That depends on whether or not their food was brought her along with them. Obviously the ant and anteater are an example and kelp and the abalone.

Nope. You claimed we have destroyed the mythical balance because we are not from here. Now you say nothing is so there never was the balance you claimed.

You claimed every animal knows what to eat because they are from here. Now you claim they know what was brought along with them.

You claimed every animal knows he is from here and only humans don’t. You broke your own childish theory and now begins your struggle to hide your mistake.

I allready proved to you that we DO NOT share a relationship with wolves.

Nope you told me your opinion. I provided evidence that proved your opinion wrong which you refused to accept because it again destroyed your home grown religion

This is also why I was able to produce a PLETHORA of links and videos showing you we don't not share anything with wolves.

Nope you linked to dog bites and ignored ALL the links and videos that showed how pathetic your denial was.

The lack of relationship is so obvious that there are LAWS that prevent the owning of wolves, because they are DANGEROUS.

I have a wolf in my house now. The domestic dog, a sub species of the original Gray Wolf. We have used dogs for hunting, farming, working and companionship since pre history. You claim it is not a relationship because it again proves you wrong.

Now I know you think getting mauled by a bear or wolf is a relationship, but thats not an amicable one.

A relationship is a relationship. The native Indian has interacted and understood their relationship with bears into pre history

reply to post by Noncompatible


Even though that's a fair point... Who would want himself named and lose their career for showing public interest in the Starchild skull?

Do you actually see him being intellectually capable of making up all these results? If that's the case... Then,

Can anyone actually show me where the results are bunk? If it's not proper science and fabricated, there must be a real reason in the data itself, rather than throwing out arguments like 'he's not supported by the masses', 'he's a fraud' and so on. Why is no one showing that? Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? Why is it that when something controversial pops up, suddenly there are a list of excuses as to why we must not look at the data itself?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Connections in fossils should be rampant on this tiny rock, yet you search and search and just don't get a clue.

When you get to high school take a basic course in biology and learn.

Sure, and what ever happened to the water in the grand cannyon? I live just 50 feet from evidence of a great flood where about 100 feet down and miles across is evidence of a water channel that is now just a few feet deep.

Again the laughable claim that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a global flood. Add a basic geology course and learn. The strong evidence against the myth in the bible has been known about since the 1500s.

That is correct, soly because its about an abduction not a creation.

So you think that making a claim more absurd than the 2 differing myths in genesis is anything more than a knee slapping joke? I guess you skipped over the part where I pointed out that the myths of genesis do not match the fossil record.

The history is all we have in a lot of these things, that in itself is not proof that they never happened.

Add an intro course of archaeology to your list and learn. Most of the human record is not history.

It's easy to grasp what you have been taught, but it honeslty raises more questions then it does satisfy answers.

The idea that the bible was reflected in archaeological evidence was what I was taught. Now I know better. I learned something. Can you do the same?

If evolution were predictable, we would be able to understand the purpose for changes, which we only claim to. In addition we would be able to know for sure whats happening and why.

Again, take a course in biology when you get to high school. Learn why your questions are peppered with mistakes like using the word purpose.

No one has ever proven or witnessed a species changing into another species, therefore, you believe in a religion.

You've been given many examples in this thread. Only close minded people are unable to understand the material presented. Again, you have no idea what distinguishes a religion from science.

You also have to laugh at how we just popped into existance as humans one day, but have not one shred of shared lineage, no shared creations or inventions, no share language yet your certain we evolved

Again, no one claims that "we" as in humans popped into existence except for creationists. No scientists make that claim.

reply to post by itsthetooth

My mistakes have been few and far between, but you on the other hand need to cuddle up next to a bear.

Yeah right and you again show a complete inability to understand what a relationship is.

Your arguing semantics, the fact is the tank is sold as a balanced system. Sorry man, I'm not the one that put them together, but I see your still in denial of the fact that they are what they are, sold as a balance system.

Here you prove me right again. You still claim it was a balanced system because that is what the SEALED GLOBE is sold as.

Explains why you believe what pye tells you. You want to believe so it must be so. The denial is all yours

All I did was copy and past the definitions and links, and your not happy with the facts so you attack me as though I wrote them. Get a clue man

Nope. You supplied links to google front page and cherry picked what you pasted. You also refused to accept any definition other than that one because the all showed you were purposely avoiding the real definition.

You need to man up to the fact that you are wrong, and that you were proven wrong, but don't want to accept the facts.

Thats called reflected guilt and your full of it.

If our hands were made for farming, we would use them for farming. Instead we build tools that help us farm.

Our hands evolved and we have used them for nearly every action we make. You have to be the most self deluded person that ever lived. Is there no depth of ignorance you wont stoop to to maintian your lies?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Everything is suppose to be in balance and have order.

No idea where you came up with that.

While you believe that any species is just suppose to eat whatever it can find. Common sense would prove you wrong.

False. That is not common sense.

Species are suppose to have Target Food, anything less and you have a compramise in the quality of life.

There is no such thing as target foods. Provide even 1 piece of evidence.

Of course what your totally missing is the fact that in this process, the only thing that has happned is evolution has become more illusive.

Every stage of evolution is illusive. We can't trace, predict, or identify what changes are going to happen next, yet we believe they are all part of the same process known as evolution.

When you get to high school take an intro to biology course and learn.

reply to post by itsthetooth

People find it hard to understand some things in the bible because most people fail to realize that its prefaced as a supernatural occurance.

I actually know of no one that does not know that the bible is a story involving magic. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever for exodus, Noah's flood, or genesis. These are all myths unrelated to reality. They were good stories to tell in the bronze age. They are all fairy tales.

This is why I have pointed out over and over, that there is no proof that all and any changes are all part of the SAME process known as evolution. It's only assumed, a common problem among evolutionists.
There is no proof that speciation is the early stages of a species changing into another species because there is no proof that a species can change into another species.

Take an intro biology course and learn.

And this imaginary illusive process just so happens to be responsible for creating over a billion species? Right.

Evolution is evidenced by the fossil record, which shows many more than the 40 to 50 million that exist today.

reply to post by vasaga

Repeating and believing in outdated biased results that confirm your bias, are we? He has not been shown to be a fraud. It has been shown that the MOTHER was human, due to mitochondrial DNA. But the nuclear DNA, which contains DNA from both parents, has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog.

I know you won't be convinced anyway, but whatever.

Two studies say you are wrong.

Originally posted by vasaga
I'm the one attempting to change the subject, after you've used the word evolution in different senses multiple times?

I said I thought you were being pedantic, but now I think i'll add dishonest into the mix.

If it's two billion years, they'll just give it another name, or say the data must be wrong.

My example was specific in the name of the species found, and its date. Any kind of scientific conspiracy need not enter into it, other than within the ramblings of the super paranoid...

Funny, how suddenly the argument 'fossils are rare' does not apply.

Funny? who's presented that argument, did you mean to add this to your reply? (I ask as it's almost asthough you're attempting to change the subject...)

Then you've defined evolution to be unfalsifiable. It's that simple.

I've not redefined the word the english speaking world has. The fact you're ignorant of this is, while inconsequential, quite typical to folk with your worldview.

Oh look. The typical well-poisoning, ad hominem.

I was attacking your beliefs, not you personally. They are not mutually exclusive so you don't get to play the victim...

I have an issue with you people presenting yourselves as scientific while all you're doing is blind obedience.

That wasn't the question was it.....

Yay. More appeal to ridicule. Just what we need, to have a sensible logical discussion.

Lol you did defend Lloyd Pye did you not?

'sensible logical discussion'

reply to post by Shema

Why do you presume a creationist has any belief whatsoever in Genesis? Sure, some do but a lot don't, they aren't that dumb.

Because I have been to creationist lectures. They are that dumb.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Stereo !!!! I seriously get sick of defending Pyes claims to a bunch of people that run and hide when I tell them to back up their claims.

So I'm going to do you one better.

So you post a link to Pye and claim his lies are the truth. Like I stated Pye is a liar. He continues to lie. He lies just like all of the frauds that made money off of 2012.

Two independent tests show that Pye is a liar.

reply to post by itsthetooth

We function and adapt in a world that is not ours and not theirs either.

A page or two ago you claimed you provide evidence. All you have provided again is your opinion. Show the evidence for your claim above.

Explain why you have spent a year telling everyone that humans were brought here and not everything was brought here that you now claim is in the bible.

If a natural disaster wiped things out like pointed out in the bible, it would depend on whether or not all of it was destroyed. As far as the bacteria and organisims, its hard to know.

Again all you provide is your vague opinion.

You claimed many times that the food and water of this planet makes us ill because we are not from here. That all the other animals do not suffer the same because they are native.

You claimed no one would live past puberty without medical intervention ignoring all the evidence that proved you wrong. Now you say all these animals were also brought here. How do they live past puberty without medical intervention?

Now explain your previous and obvious lies and false claims.

Well your assuming that because we adapt, to adapt, to adapt, that this was the intended mode for us to survive, but you have no proof.

Nope. Address the question not some drivel to deflect from it. The point made was:

Of course your revelation means you have blown target food out of the water which leaves your argument against evolution with little more than your claims of ‘outlandish hands’, ‘shoes’, ‘clothes’ and ‘milk’.

Your claim was everything other than man had target food. You cannot even tell me if this was a sterile and lifeless world before life was put here or if it was just bacteria. Whether plants were here or not. Please refer to your historical document and provide the evidence to back your vague claims.

According to Sitchen, our planet was prepared for us to mine gold off the planet for another planet. Gold is frequently brought up in the bible as well.

I see another vague answer with no evidence just your opinion and as you have been caught out in another lie your opinion is not acceptable.

So these aliens brought ALL life so humans could mine gold. That means to me that the life that was brought here to support us. That tends to indicate that ONLY humans have the mythical target food for sure.

I know you will not provide any evidence because the claim that you do is just another of your over used lies and as above shows your ridiculous story never holds water which is why you spend so much time in denial and work so hard to construct pathetic lies to cover it, or deflect from the questions asked of you completely.

So you might surprise me but until you address the above with supporting evidence I would say your ridiculous target food has been exposed as just that. Ridiculous and laughably ............ exposed by YOU

reply to post by stereologist

As has been pointed out many many times in this thread you simply have no idea what science means by evolution. Pretending that evolution is your failed understanding of the idea simply continues to keep your closed mind in the dark.

Things that happen with nothing to back them up, is not science. Things like evolution that is not predictable, is even harder to prove, borderline non science. Your working off much more fantasy than you are science.
There is no science that has proven that a species can change into another species.
There is no science that has proven that any species is changing due to any process, only that we assume there is.
There is simply no proof. YOU have placed your faith and religion in this belief. Anything that has not been proven is a belief.

No one has made that claim.

YOU have by exempting the supernatural. FYI those things are not bound to the limitations of standard science, so this is why you fail to accept it, in other words you only believe in what you can touch and see, and there is no possibility for anything else. So why I ask, could you possibly believe in evolution, you cant see it, you cant touch it, all you can do is assume it.

I've shown both of those claims to be wrong.

And this is obviously where you are getting mixed up. You see there is nothing that can be proven wrong. The only claim is that abalone eats one thing and one thing only unless you have something that proves otherwise.

Again you show that you do not understand the meaning of evolution as used by science. It certainly isn't isn't the weird usage you've chosen

Evolution is nothing more than a belief to conquer the idea of religion. It explains how we have diversity to ignore the written word that these things were placed here by god. Thats all it is, a religion for those that choose to not want a god. Of course evolution makes no claims about creation, because it can't. It's impossible to explain the starting of life without the help of life.

Clueless comments not connected to reality. I already have shown that 100% of your claims were wrong.

No one has ever provided me with anything that has even come close to proving target food wrong. And it doesn't shock me as the truth is the truth.

Another bald-faced lie. I've shown that every animal you have claimed has a limited diet is wrong. That includes your failure with the abalone.

Abalone is living proof that a species can thrive on one food. So the question becomes why can't all of us? The answer is in the bible, because we were not equipped with our proper food. I have had nothing to date that otherwise explains malnutrition even though we have so much food. Nothing that explains why we work so hard at producing supplements, nothing that explains why we have so many food related alergies and sickness. Why we have obesity. Why we have diabeties. Why we have colon cancer. Why we have so many food related illness. Why we have to redundantaly process food to make it safe for consumption.

Now, you have an answer to all this? Please share, as ever doctor in the world would love to be hearing from you.

You haven't presented me with anything that gives answers to anything related to Target food. You might have some idea related to evolution but that is obviously wrong. That idea will not support life, and will create sickness just like we are dealing with right now. So your obviously wrong.

reply to post by Noncompatible

Never really intended to post, but had to. Pye has never named the labs (or the geneticist) that are supposedly used, the results he claims have never been peer reviewed or replicated. In conclusion :

"has been shown to be more different from humans than a frog" is far from factual unless you choose to place blind belief in Pye's words without anything or anyone else to corroborate them

The link I provided does give all of th labs names, and those that worked on this project including peer reviews.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Things that happen with nothing to back them up, is not science. Things like evolution that is not predictable, is even harder to prove, borderline non science. Your working off much more fantasy than you are science.

Take an intro class in biology and learn why this is wrong.

There is no science that has proven that a species can change into another species.

Many examples posted in this thread showing you are wrong.

There is no science that has proven that any species is changing due to any process, only that we assume there is.

YOU have by exempting the supernatural.

That is just another irrational inference made by YOU.

FYI those things are not bound to the limitations of standard science, so this is why you fail to accept it, in other words you only believe in what you can touch and see, and there is no possibility for anything else. So why I ask, could you possibly believe in evolution, you cant see it, you cant touch it, all you can do is assume it.

False. I see the fossil record.

And this is obviously where you are getting mixed up. You see there is nothing that can be proven wrong. The only claim is that abalone eats one thing and one thing only unless you have something that proves otherwise.

Already posted. You are wrong.

Evolution is nothing more than a belief to conquer the idea of religion.

False. Typical creationist gibberish. Heard better nonsense from creationist lecturers.

It explains how we have diversity to ignore the written word that these things were placed here by god. Thats all it is, a religion for those that choose to not want a god. Of course evolution makes no claims about creation, because it can't. It's impossible to explain the starting of life without the help of life.

More unrelated creationist gibberish.

No one has ever provided me with anything that has even come close to proving target food wrong. And it doesn't shock me as the truth is the truth.

The onus is on you providing evidence and so far you have failed 100% of the time.

Abalone is living proof that a species can thrive on one food.

False. Abalone do not eat 1 type of food.

The answer is in the bible

Why are you referring to a source that is known to be full of fake stories such as exodus, genesis, and the flood?

I have had nothing to date that otherwise explains malnutrition even though we have so much food.

Try learning. It's fun
en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing that explains why we work so hard at producing supplements, nothing that explains why we have so many food related alergies and sickness. Why we have obesity. Why we have diabeties. Why we have colon cancer. Why we have so many food related illness. Why we have to redundantaly process food to make it safe for consumption.

Now, you have an answer to all this? Please share, as ever doctor in the world would love to be hearing from you.

Every doctor in the world knows. just because you have no idea or are close minded or refuse to learn has no bearing on others that do want to learn and have learned and understand the issues.

You haven't presented me with anything that gives answers to anything related to Target food.

The onus is on you to show even once that there is a target food.

reply to post by colin42

As I wrote the same dishonest tooth. A species evolves. We categorise them into different species when they can no longer breed with each other.

The only admission here is that you cannot and will not understand that simple fact. The only one that falls for your dishonesty is you.

My neighbor is no longer able to produce children and the doctors have ruled out everything they know of that can cause this. Does that mean she has evolved .

And why wont the doctor tell her that .

Ah the words of a science major You are correct I don’t factor in magic, true. You do so show that magic exists.

So again because it's not something you can perform, it can't possibly be real, because you are the one and only know it all swammi that can do anything right?

At least I have documentation indicating that the supernatural is real, which is a lot more than you have right now of just your claims that it can't possibly exist because you can't do it. Poor man, you must feel cheated.

What is pathetic is your lies and straw man arguments to cover your ignorance and delusion. Now demonstrate this magic you put so much importance on. Explain how a man lives inside a whale.

And we are back to square one. Again you think that ANYONE should be able to perform supernatural acts. Are you seeing why your so blind at this point? I don't posses supernatural abilities any more than you do, get over it and move on with your life, but more importantly learn from it.

Of course you do, you always hide behind lies and this is a case in point.

Yes someone did make the claim that our food evolves right along side with us, and changes as we do to fit our needs. This would obviously require intelligence.

Only problem is you are not building cars. Now show the evidence for your claim. Show me what parts of you have been recycled. and I don’t mean your crazy lies

It's a metaphor, I was trying to pick something easy hoping you would understand.

And here you show again you have no idea what naturally means

Naturally means they don't have to go out of their way and adapt by making tools to allow them the ability to farm, they are allready instilled with the needed tools and capacity to perform this task, therefore its natural to them, not to us, get it!

And that has been the case for what, 10 years. Now explain the last 6000 years.

If you have to reflect back, then you missed the whole point. Going forward, if we have to modify our food to our needs, then its obviously because the food does not fit our needs as is. In other words its not our food.

We provide water because we grow food intensively so the process of watering may be ARTICFICIAL but it is still natural i.e. not against nature.

Using machines to plant and harvest is NOT natural. You could argue that using our hands is, but I would demand proof that our hands were specifically designed for this purpose, then you would have to explain away everything else you use your hands for. The bottom line is there is no proof that our hands are specifically designed for farming, and if they are, why do we choose to make machines to do the work? GMO's are not natural, Watering is not natural, plowing is not natural, if it were, it would occur on its own, fertilizer is not natural, if it was it would get there on its own. Your just about 20 steps away from explaining how farming is natural to huamns, and you won't make it past one.

Again that has been true for around 200 years now explain the last 6000 years

It might have started out natural but the fact is we moved it to unnatural.

Isn’t it? Explain with evidence to back your nonsense claim

Ok but this will only be about the umteenth time I have explained this.

Natural

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun
A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb
Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

Anytime humankind is involved with making or causing, its not natural.

It must be. Your aliens seem to think so.

Well yes humans are GMO's but thats not because they had health and such in mind. Their desires were a little more benefit driven.

Nope. You claimed we have destroyed the mythical balance because we are not from here. Now you say nothin

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by vasaga
I'm the one attempting to change the subject, after you've used the word evolution in different senses multiple times?

I said I thought you were being pedantic, but now I think i'll add dishonest into the mix.

Glad I could join your club.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

If it's two billion years, they'll just give it another name, or say the data must be wrong.

My example was specific in the name of the species found, and its date. Any kind of scientific conspiracy need not enter into it, other than within the ramblings of the super paranoid...

Yeah, because science is oh so perfect and has definitely not called things pseudoscientific that ended up being real science.. Oh wait...

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Funny, how suddenly the argument 'fossils are rare' does not apply.

Funny? who's presented that argument, did you mean to add this to your reply? (I ask as it's almost asthough you're attempting to change the subject...)

When people argue for missing fossils, the argument thrown out is always that fossils are rare and we can't expect it to be there. But if I would use that argument right now, as to why there are no fossils for a billion year old human, then suddenly I'm dishonest, delusional, ignorant, blah blah. That was the point.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Then you've defined evolution to be unfalsifiable. It's that simple.

I've not redefined the word the english speaking world has. The fact you're ignorant of this is, while inconsequential, quite typical to folk with your worldview.

I know the world uses evolution for everything, and you know damn well that that's not the evolution that's being talked about in this thread. And then you accuse me of being dishonest. Pot kettle much.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Oh look. The typical well-poisoning, ad hominem.

I was attacking your beliefs, not you personally. They are not mutually exclusive so you don't get to play the victim...

Uh.. Your words:

"it contradicts your chosen holy book/space ghost/world view"

I do not fit in that category.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

I have an issue with you people presenting yourselves as scientific while all you're doing is blind obedience.

That wasn't the question was it.....

But still a point you people should evaluate yourselves on. To answer your question, I have an issue with mainstream historical theories, I have an issue with the Big Bang theory, I have an issue with the multiverse hypothesis, I have an issue with dark energy and dark matter..

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Yay. More appeal to ridicule. Just what we need, to have a sensible logical discussion.

Lol you did defend Lloyd Pye did you not?

'sensible logical discussion'

So.. Defending someone you don't like somehow gives you the right to ridicule me?

reply to post by colin42

Nope. You claimed we have destroyed the mythical balance because we are not from here. Now you say nothing is so there never was the balance you claimed.

We are doing the most damage to this planet but all the life here has also knocked it off balance.

Surly we don't go around telling the natural life here to pick up after themselves, but we do to humans.

You claimed every animal knows what to eat because they are from here. Now you claim they know what was brought along with them.

If their food was brought with them, then yes, they have food otherwise no.

You claimed every animal knows he is from here and only humans don’t. You broke your own childish theory and now begins your struggle to hide your mistake.

More like as far as they are concearned. Animals are not sentient beings, duh.

Nope you told me your opinion. I provided evidence that proved your opinion wrong which you refused to accept because it again destroyed your home grown religion

You have never provided diddley about proving we have a relationship with wolves. You do however have your opinion and did manage to find a few sites making opinionated claims of such but they didn't outweigh the doznes of sites I sent to you proving you WRONG! Including a video about a wolf attack on a human.

Nope you linked to dog bites and ignored ALL the links and videos that showed how pathetic your denial was.

You must be suffering from selective amnesia, I gave links about wolf attacks on humans.

Wolf caring Here they have to dart a wolf just to get to where they can care for him, Hardly what I would call a natural relationship unless you consider darting and drugs natural, and getting attacked and bitten.

Wolves attack sled dogs and humans Another prime example of just how wrong you are. These wolves are NOT friendly and are not interested in haveing a relationship with dogs or humans, as proven in this video.

Wolf attack on man It's a reinactment but shows how any wolf will attack any human.

wolf attacks manHere is a video that I originally posted to you that clearly shows the hostile natural that comes from wolves. Wolves are NOT mans friend, and if you honeslty believe they are, you need to offer youself to one and watch what happens.

Hope this poor chap didn't get rabbies. You will never hear the term "wild wolf" because they are all treated to be wild, they are not our friends.

Wolf attacks man on snowmobile

Getting out alive

Fatal wolf attack in alaska

Ontario man killed in wolf attack

How to fight off a pack of hungry wolves

wolf attack on humans

Florence-ar ea man fends off wolf that attacked dog

Wolf attacks man until friend blasts him with shotgun

Rabbid wolf attacks man in lobby

Experts Reassure Public Following Rare Fatal Wolf Attack

berne man attacked by wolf

Uhm ya, I think your full of it, and your totally in denial, as you can see from the ongoing links, FYI I stopped posting them but they go on forever, We do NOT share a relationship with the wolf.

I have a wolf in my house now. The domestic dog, a sub species of the original Gray Wolf. We have used dogs for hunting, farming, working and companionship since pre history. You claim it is not a relationship because it again proves you wrong.

First of all its illegal and you could get hurt bad.

A relationship is a relationship. The native Indian has interacted and understood their relationship with bears into pre history
[/quot