For one thing, you seem to think that we give a flying fuck what you think.

(November 28, 2018 at 9:43 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:False, every scientist has to until their theory is disproven. They are working on the assumption that it is true and we all know microevolution has been proven.

True they are working with the fact it's true and they know Macro evolution is beyond reasonable doubt 
False. It is not beyond reasonable doubt. There is no observable evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species.

Quote:False and if you really think so, prove it.

Already been done they are clearly talking about Macro Evolution and once again i don't need to convince you of anything .
So, you can't because you're wrong, got it.

Quote:False, and it says so right in the first couple lines of the article. Still needs to be corroborated though.

True nothing in the article is attempt nor a success at challenging evolution and the scientists know it  it's creationists that warp their findings to fit their agenda .
No, it was written that way, because it casts more doubt on the theory whether you like it or not. And none of the articles I posted were from creationists. They were all from science.

Quote:Nope, you showed I was right and that you didn't even read what you were posting.

Wrong i refuted your points and you didn't read it

Stop lying. Lying does not make it true. You never even read what you posted. 

At work.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:06 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 9:49 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: So, I take it the 13 yr old angry goth girl is accurate ?
That explains sooooo much.
Teenagers your age think they know everything.

Speaking of everything.
I specifically don't think you understand everything.
You've gotten everything you've ever said on this forum wrong, like demonstrably wrong, pathetically wrong.

To paraphrase a semi well known quote.
"You're not even wrong"

This quote means that you first would have to say something that's even in the ballpark of wrongness.
You're so far out there, you're not even wrong.

Really? Name one thing then. I said be specific fool.

? Really? We are to point out 'One' thing you've gotten wrong and we are to be specific?

We can't be involved with emotive or colourful words?
We can't just post words because they agree with our 'Feels'?

Okay, how about "Fungii are plants" as a factually wrong (But not to your emotive feels of course)

I'm sure Bucky will be along shortly to repost a plethora of your gaffs.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:12 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:06 pm)Everena Wrote: Really? Name one thing then. I said be specific fool.

 ?    Really? We are to point out 'One' thing you've gotten wrong and we are to be specific?

We can't be involved with emotive or colourful words?
We can't just post words because they agree with our 'Feels'?

Okay, how about "Fungii are plants" as a factually wrong (But not to your emotive feels  of course)

I'm sure Bucky will be along shortly to repost a plethora of your gaffs.

No kidding, and I have already said that I think fungi and sponges are plants and should be classified as such. Can you not come up with even one other thing in my 810 posts over the last 18 days? I start on page 588. Go right ahead and dig in.

Quote:False. It is not beyond reasonable doubt. There is no observable evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species.

False and you know it 

Quote:So, you can't because you're wrong, got it

It's been done  so this game won't work and i don't need to convince the agenda driven their wrong 

Quote:No, it was written that way, because it casts more doubt on the theory whether you like it or not. And none of the articles I posted were from creationists. They were all from science.

Yes it was and no it doesn't  in the slightest and the scientists know it as did every "Real " scientist who read it and what i like is not even a factor here. The only people who interpreted it your way were quacks and creationists And wither you used creationist sites you did the same bullshit they did .

Quote:Stop lying. Lying does not make it true. You never even read what you posted. 

You would love that wouldn't . Too bad it isn't so .....

---

Quote:No kidding, and I have already said that I think fungi and sponges are plants and should be classified as such. Can you not come up with even one other thing in my over 500 posts over the last 18 days? I start on page 588. Go right ahead and dig in.

W either you said it or not does not make it any less bullshit and it's still a thing

---

(November 28, 2018 at 10:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: For one thing, you seem to think that we give a flying fuck what you think.

But you need to convince her of that 

It's a bit like letting a mob boss be their own judge and them scream no fair when you say no .

---

(November 28, 2018 at 10:12 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:06 pm)Everena Wrote: Really? Name one thing then. I said be specific fool.

 ?    Really? We are to point out 'One' thing you've gotten wrong and we are to be specific?

We can't be involved with emotive or colourful words?
We can't just post words because they agree with our 'Feels'?

Okay, how about "Fungii are plants" as a factually wrong (But not to your emotive feels  of course)

I'm sure Bucky will be along shortly to repost a plethora of your gaffs.

Their really is no need to degrade yourself humoring her pitiful challenges it's not like she's ever going to acknowledge anything . There are no consequences for bullshitting on the internet .So were just jumping through hoops for nothing .

At work.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:18 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 10:12 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:  ?    Really? We are to point out 'One' thing you've gotten wrong and we are to be specific?

We can't be involved with emotive or colourful words?
We can't just post words because they agree with our 'Feels'?

Okay, how about "Fungii are plants" as a factually wrong (But not to your emotive feels  of course)

I'm sure Bucky will be along shortly to repost a plethora of your gaffs.

No kidding, and I have already said that I think fungi and sponges are plants and should be classified as such. Can you not come up with even one other thing in my 810 posts over the last 18 days? I start on page 588. Go right ahead and dig in.

Yes Dear.

But you already said we had to be;

A) Specific.
.
And name one thing.

I was specific. I was correct. I was singular.

No amount of ".... But, but maah feels!" is going to, in effect, cut it.

To which we will most probably , and simply, see more iterations of ".. But, but I said so."

(November 28, 2018 at 10:34 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:18 pm)Everena Wrote: No kidding, and I have already said that I think fungi and sponges are plants and should be classified as such. Can you not come up with even one other thing in my  810 posts over the last 18 days? I start on page 588. Go right ahead and dig in.

Yes Dear.

But you already said we had to be;

 A) Specific.
.
And name one thing.

I was specific. I was correct. I was singular.

No amount of ".... But, but maah feels!" is going to, in effect, cut it.

 To which we will most probably , and simply, see more iterations of ".. But, but I said so."

As i said your jumping through hoops for her . I just say screw you you know you are wrong i know you are wrong the majority of the people reading this know you are wrong . So why do i need to play that game ? I don't and i won't .

(November 28, 2018 at 9:35 pm)Everena Wrote: I think if a species mates in a consious manner, and has a penis that it injects a female with, it is conscious.

That's a fascinating definition. I think I begin to see why you think "microtubules" are involved.

Your definition is lovingly circular. A species must be conscious in order to mate "in a conscious manner" and if it mates "in a conscious manner" then clearly it is conscious. But what makes you think that barnacles do anything other than blindly follow instinct? It isn't as if the have a lot to work with in terms of brains.

Perhaps you'd be better served with a definition than some arbitrary criteria cobbled together.

(November 28, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Everena Wrote: If you don't think science can someday prove intelligent design, then you are the one who does not understand science.

I know that ID's tenets are unfalsifiable, which means that it is not and cannot be regarded as science.

Quote:I understand the words. I also understand that you have provided nothing that explains how the complexity of DNA could come about without an intelligent driving force. The big rock in your front yard did not create DNA. No matter what you think can arise from an inanimate object, it is literally not possible or logical in any way. And you obviously have no argument of your own.

Then explain to me what complexity means.

Quote:I'm sure Bucky will be along shortly to repost a plethora of your gaffs.

I'm still trying to figure out which scientific journal to write to and publish Everena's totally amazing discovery ....
.... that you can tell whether something is a plant or fungus or another classification simply by going to the supermarket and looking to see what department it's in.
Who'd a thunk it ?
Maybe there's a Journal of Woo-ology.

(November 28, 2018 at 10:48 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 9:35 pm)Everena Wrote: I think if a species mates in a consious manner, and has a penis that it injects a female with, it is conscious.

That's a fascinating definition. I think I begin to see why you think "microtubules" are involved.

Your definition is lovingly circular. A species must be conscious in order to mate "in a conscious manner" and if it mates "in a conscious manner" then clearly it is conscious. But what makes you think that barnacles do anything other than blindly follow instinct? It isn't as if the have a lot to work with in terms of brains.

Perhaps you'd be better served with a definition than some arbitrary criteria cobbled together.

(November 28, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Everena Wrote: If you don't think science can someday prove intelligent design, then you are the one who does not understand science.

I know that ID's tenets are unfalsifiable, which means that it is not and cannot be regarded as science.

Quote:I understand the words. I also understand that you have provided nothing that explains how the complexity of DNA could come about without an intelligent driving force. The big rock in your front yard did not create DNA. No matter what you think can arise from an inanimate object, it is literally not possible or logical in any way. And you obviously have no argument of your own.

Then explain to me what complexity means.

Her definitions of conscientiousness is one of convenience
Her definition of complex is also one of convenience

---

(November 28, 2018 at 10:52 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:I'm sure Bucky will be along shortly to repost a plethora of your gaffs.

I'm still trying to figure out which scientific journal to write to and publish Everena's totally amazing discovery ....
.... that you can tell whether something is a plant or fungus or another classification simply by going to the supermarket and looking to see what department it's in.  
Who'd a thunk it ?
Maybe there's a Journal of Woo-ology.

But you have to convince her of that .....

Remember to be "specific" or she will assert you can't because that logically follows....