Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BubbuClinton" data-source="post: 27017" data-attributes="member: 395"><p><strong>Re: Treeees!!!</strong></p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No, it is still a dog with different charateristics. Its not a cat/dog or a dog/bird. It is still a long hair dog or a happy dog, or a really stupid dog that looks like a Hot dog. But it still a dog.</p><p> </p><p>The logical leap you make is the insane approach that I am complaining about. No where in there written history of man has there been evidence of anything changing from one species to another. So no, it is not logical to continue on your thread of if charaterics change it will change species. You still don't have evidence.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Actually, I am just questioning your logic and asking you point to real evidence that supports you. I did not bring up religion, you did. I am not totally opposed to evolution, but I think it still a very weak theory and should be treated as such and not believed in like a religion.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I am very old. But I answered this above.</p><p> </p><p> You are making my point. Peer reviewed means "challenged and examined by peers. Not blindly followed like evolutionist tend to do.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Yes there is a lot of evidence. I do not dispute that. And you are also correct that evolution may not be the correct interpretation of that evidence.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Now this is sounding like magic. Because something is not demostrated by our febble skills to interpret does not make it a fact.</p><p> </p><p>The only evidence that you offer to support you theory is a statement with a serious logical fallacy. </p><p> </p><p>My only point is that we don't know yet and Evolution has yet to be proven. Yet you insist on believing it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Show your evidence. That is all I ask. So far you have profered none.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Hmmm.... who has lack of understanding here? You are the one with the logical fallacy to support. You state that if characteristics change enough they will change species. Of course the dog to cat example was a little extreme to make a point. Show me a fish that turns into a lizard or something. You pick since the evidence is so vast. Go a head. I dare you,</p><p> </p><p>No, I double dare you.</p><p> </p><p>Bubbu</p><p>__________________________________</p><p> </p><p>P.S. Thanks Harte for not getting into this pissing match.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BubbuClinton, post: 27017, member: 395"] [b]Re: Treeees!!![/b] No, it is still a dog with different charateristics. Its not a cat/dog or a dog/bird. It is still a long hair dog or a happy dog, or a really stupid dog that looks like a Hot dog. But it still a dog. The logical leap you make is the insane approach that I am complaining about. No where in there written history of man has there been evidence of anything changing from one species to another. So no, it is not logical to continue on your thread of if charaterics change it will change species. You still don't have evidence. Actually, I am just questioning your logic and asking you point to real evidence that supports you. I did not bring up religion, you did. I am not totally opposed to evolution, but I think it still a very weak theory and should be treated as such and not believed in like a religion. I am very old. But I answered this above. You are making my point. Peer reviewed means "challenged and examined by peers. Not blindly followed like evolutionist tend to do. Yes there is a lot of evidence. I do not dispute that. And you are also correct that evolution may not be the correct interpretation of that evidence. Now this is sounding like magic. Because something is not demostrated by our febble skills to interpret does not make it a fact. The only evidence that you offer to support you theory is a statement with a serious logical fallacy. My only point is that we don't know yet and Evolution has yet to be proven. Yet you insist on believing it. Show your evidence. That is all I ask. So far you have profered none. Hmmm.... who has lack of understanding here? You are the one with the logical fallacy to support. You state that if characteristics change enough they will change species. Of course the dog to cat example was a little extreme to make a point. Show me a fish that turns into a lizard or something. You pick since the evidence is so vast. Go a head. I dare you, No, I double dare you. Bubbu __________________________________ P.S. Thanks Harte for not getting into this pissing match. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top