Can you refute these facts?

Question

Nothing will be DNA if DNA cannot be thought as "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, link, limit, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment."

Nothing will be Gene if Gene cannot be thought as "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, link, limit, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment."

Nothing will be Gene Expression if Gene Expression cannot be thought as "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, link, limit, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment."

Nothing will be Milk if Milk cannot be thought as "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, link, limit, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment."
.
.
.

Nothing will be Sex if Sex cannot be thought as "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, link, limit, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment."

Answer 1

DNA will be nothing
Sex will be nothing
Gene will be nothing
Gene Expression will be nothing
Milk will always be golden in the world of cows, farmers, and utter[ly] sensational weather.

Answer 2

Nothing is if identity is not. Identity as a what? "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, link, limit, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment."

If nothing can be made anything when it can not be thought, then I am God and everything is mine by virtue of my lack of thought for everything.

Answer 3

i'm optimistic you're preaching and for this reason you think of you be conscious of what you're speaking approximately. you do now not. in case you have an interest in the actuality than here that's. "Java guy- Dates long in the past to 1980. This species is common to inhabit the Northern areas of Australia (Aborigines)" this is easy racist idiocy. Aboriginies at the instant are not Homo erectus that's what Java guy became into. there are particular function on the skulls of H. erectus that distinguish them from modern human beings. Aboriginies are modern human beings. "Peking guy- suggested to be 2 million years old. The clinical analyze of those bones chanced directly to be the bones of an animal. All info has because disappeared." Peking guy is as much as two million years old and is likewise H. erectus. the unique cranium became into lost in international war 2 yet casts have been made and different fossils chanced on. this is easy college biology. you incredibly need to tell your self greater useful and supply up counting on those that don't be conscious of what they're speaking approximately. Piltdown guy- The jawbone became out to belong to a fashionable ape. Piltdown became right into a hoax employing a fashionable human and an ape jaw. It became into created to educate that guy's concepts would desire to have progressed first. by some skill i think of the hoaxers would have been such as you of their ideals. In any adventure they have been incorrect. Neanderthal guy- chanced on by using Dr. A.J.E. Cave to belong to an old guy who sufferes from arthritis. It became into an old arthritic Neanderthal exhibiting that even 2 hundred,000 years in the past, Neanderthals would desire to have shown kindness to their elders. There are hundreds of healthful Neanderthals chanced on. So what if one had arthritis. Cro-magnon guy- equivalent in physique and ideas skill to trendy guy, so what's the version? None of magnitude. modern guy- This genius thinks we come from a monkey. in actuality we are a sort of bipedal ape that decended from different apes that decended from a sort of monkey that modern monkeys descended from. earlier that it became into in all likelihood we descended from a tarsier like animal. in case you pass back some distance adequate there'll be a fish on your ancestry. you will possibly now not like it yet those are info. you may proceed believing fairy memories yet do now not pretend you have credibility. you do now not.

Answer 4

Back away from the crack pipe.

Answer 5

nihilism refutes all facts, that's why it's useless.

Answer 6

YOU INCLUDED SOME "LAWS OF REASON" THAT CANNOT BE CATAGORIZED AS FACTS...

SLOWLY STEP AWAY FROM THE METH...

Answer 7

Yes I can refute these facts very simply. WTF

Answer 8

perv