Science against evolution

page: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





And now you demonstrate again your inability to read. Man, Myth & Magic is a compilation from many authors as stated in the links info. Witch craft is based wait for it .......... on a religious belief.

So it is based on many peoples definition of supernatural. People that have spent over 30 years studying the supernatural
I know, its just that their definitions werent good enough to make it into dictionarys
.





Again you cant read and cannot be honest as in the very same post I gave you another defintion

Magic (supernatural)
So what ?? magic might be paranormal but that doesn't mean its supernatural.

Your dishonesty is showing again, trying to pass off words that aren't even related to each other.




And yet you cannot find anything that backs up target food fantasy
Why do you persist in lying, I told you before I had shared one from a different person on a blog, that was claiming animals seem to know what food to look for instinctivly. And there is pattern in every diet I have looked up, and as for target food itself I allready told you abalone is a good one.




The hell you arnt.
Your like the icon of not accepting dictionary terms.




Nope. All I asked you to do is put your use of it into context. You dont understand context either.
Anyone with half a brain knows what in the wild means.




That is another post of mine you ignored.


I have allready posted pages of different sources for the definition natural. Like I have told you before I'm not going to play the colin repeat game with you, you are welcome to review back and get them yourself

Then you have no objections to this one then

Natural

Strangely I don’t find anywhere anything where it says Natural = not to do with man

Yep and thats the ONLY definition out of 8 different ones that doesn't. So which ones do you think are correct? The one out of eight that supports your deluded fantasy?




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Overarching overall; all-encompassing ⇒ an overarching concept

Unifies To make into or become a unit; consolidate.

Plurality one of the "twelve pure concepts of the understanding" proposed by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason

the most votes for any choice in an election, but not necessarily a majority

So your link is telling you that the theory of evolution unites all the biological sciences with one single concept that is overwhelmingly accepted as true

It is telling you that as far as science is concerned this is as close to a fact as you can get within science

So again you fail to prove anything other than your total and wilful ignorance on a subject you show no ability to understand.
I love how you totally skipped over the most important one called hypothesis. See how dishonest you are.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Yes, but in order to suggest the deleterious rate is too high they'd have to map genomes of both the parents and offspring.

err...they did.

you said the deleterious mutation rate wasn't as high as i was claiming, and said the paper i provided was outdated. i then provide a to-date paper that arrived at a deleterious mutation rate of 4.2 (falling between 3.0 and 5.0, the numbers i previously gave) and you reject it. it's peer reviewed, done by evolutionists, and current.

but it's obviously wrong, because it contradicts evolution, right?


deleterious mutations are more dangerous to evolution in the long run because most of them aren't expressed as harmful. they remove information from the genome without any outward signs, and so there are no real ways for natural selection to deal with them.

you claim that you had debunked this, but all you're saying is "it can't be true". it is the nail in the coffin for evolution. evolution simply cannot happen, but you're not willing to accept that.

i will agree with you that there are a lot of idiots in this thread. it's hard to discuss things rationally when others are playing "who's the biggest idiot" game and meaningful posts are lost in the flood of garbage.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I would seriously question any theory thats 150 years in the making. Sounds more to me like moving goal posts around a few times.

Some theories have been around longer than that. Please learn something.


Evolution is certainly no a fact, as mentioned in this evolution website...

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.


Trust me, if you have been working on it for 150 years, and its still full of holes, which it is, big holes you can fall in, it's certainly not a fact.

It seems you do not understand the meaning of theory in science just as you do not understand other terms.


What this means is that first of all its not a scientific fact, and as a whole has not been proven.

Here you blunder again. Take a course when you get to high school.


In short, there are sections of evolution that have never been proven, therefore you cant claim it to be a fact.

You continue to not understand basic terms. Theories explain facts. Evolution is a fact. There are theories explaining the fact of evolution. There are theories of evolution. They explain the fact of evolution.


If you want to say the theory exists, thats a fact, if you want to say the theory is a proven fact, thats a lie. /quote]
Learn what theory means in science. Learn the difference between proof and evidence.


Telling me that I'm wrong is not showing me that I'm wrong, I look to something a little more tangible called evidence, and when it comes to evolution its pretty thin.

You are so off the mark in so many ways I continue to recommend you take a course when you get to high school. I've proved you wrong about animals experimenting with food.


Sounds more like war to me.

Maybe you need to read the bible. It is full of witchcraft although you like to use other words. It's still witchcraft.


You seem to forget, we don't know everything, but most evolutionists are content with believing we do.

Straw man argument. No one made that claims. Scientists would never do that. Creationists have in lectures and they say that while thumping on their bibles. I've seen it several times.

edit on 25-1-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So what ?? magic might be paranormal but that doesn't mean its supernatural.

Magic can be supernatural.


Your dishonesty is showing again, trying to pass off words that aren't even related to each other. /quote]
Continued use of straw man arguments is dishonest.

Back to the issue at hand. No science has been offered at all that shows evolution wrong. After 150 years evolution is backed up by new discoveries every year.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Barcs
 



Yes, but in order to suggest the deleterious rate is too high they'd have to map genomes of both the parents and offspring.

err...they did.

Really? You are going to quote mine me like that? Read my entire response. It says that you would need to map SEVERAL genomes, really hundreds to thousands, not just a few. You need a bigger sample size before suggesting something like that disproves evolution. It does not.


you said the deleterious mutation rate wasn't as high as i was claiming, and said the paper i provided was outdated. i then provide a to-date paper that arrived at a deleterious mutation rate of 4.2 (falling between 3.0 and 5.0, the numbers i previously gave) and you reject it. it's peer reviewed, done by evolutionists, and current.

but it's obviously wrong, because it contradicts evolution, right?

I didn't reject it, I said that the rates didn't prove evolution wrong. If you read my whole response, you'd know that. That is YOUR conclusion that is loosely based on the study, NOT what the study itself concludes.


deleterious mutations are more dangerous to evolution in the long run because most of them aren't expressed as harmful. they remove information from the genome without any outward signs, and so there are no real ways for natural selection to deal with them.

There are many kinds of mutations. They aren't all deleterious. One deleterious mutation out of what millions of sequences of coding does not usually harm the organism. You also have to realize that information is ADDED to the genome as well. Sometimes it will harm the organism, but it is rare and usually those people die or don't reproduce so they don't effect evolution.


you claim that you had debunked this, but all you're saying is "it can't be true". it is the nail in the coffin for evolution. evolution simply cannot happen, but you're not willing to accept that.

When did I say that? All I'm saying is the paper warrants further study, including mapping MORE genomes from MORE cultures. It doesn't disprove evolution. If you could refer me to a direct quote in the study that says this proves evolution wrong, I'll concede this point to you, but that fact is the quote does not exist, because it is based on a poor understanding of genetics and cherry picking things just because you want it to be true.

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. This study is evidence FOR evolution if anything. That's the hilarious part.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   


It says that you would need to map SEVERAL genomes, really hundreds to thousands, not just a few.

did you read the paper? new deleterious mutations originate in either sperm or egg cells, hence why it isn't terribly difficult to determine the rate of deleterious mutations.


I didn't reject it, I said that the rates didn't prove evolution wrong. If you read my whole response, you'd know that. That is YOUR conclusion that is loosely based on the study, NOT what the study itself concludes.

then you realize the rates mean only one out of a hundred children are fit to breed? for evolution to work, the rest would have to die without breeding (the paper even states this directly), while the one who didn't get any new deleterious mutations would have to mate with another and produce another hundred children to make one at the same genetic equilibrium, and even that would result in a population decrease of 50%. the study itself ignores the birth rate problem.


There are many kinds of mutations. They aren't all deleterious.

around .001% are beneficial, everything else is either deleterious or neutral. and no, i'm not just making that up.


You also have to realize that information is ADDED to the genome as well.

it is extremely rare that information is added, and when it is, it is either a duplication of already existing information (so no new information) or it comes from a virus. nowhere near enough to contend with the deleterious mutation rate.


When did I say that? All I'm saying is the paper warrants further study, including mapping MORE genomes from MORE cultures. It doesn't disprove evolution. If you could refer me to a direct quote in the study that says this proves evolution wrong, I'll concede this point to you, but that fact is the quote does not exist, because it is based on a poor understanding of genetics and cherry picking things just because you want it to be true.

the paper was written by die-hard evolutionists, obviously it doesn't explicitly state that evolution is wrong. it's simply a matter of understanding what the deleterious mutation rate means (more cultures aren't needed. the estimate is accurate. care to prove it isn't?) then examining the solutions that evolutionists have concocted to try and solve the problem. none of them are feasible. the paper even admits as much:


Even if selection mostly occurs in the germline, it is difficult to envisage how such a high load could be tolerated by hominid populations, which have very low reproductive rates.

"difficult to envisage" means "humans can't have near enough children" therefore, evolution is impossible.


Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. This study is evidence FOR evolution if anything. That's the hilarious part.

this leads me to believe you don't understand much about genetics. while your definition of evolution is close enough, you fail to realize the consequences of such a high deleterious mutation rate.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I know, its just that their definitions werent good enough to make it into dictionarys
Your answer is again pathetic. They made it into an encyclopaedia on the subject so again all you have in reply is childish denial and dishonesty. No wonder you avoided answering it when I originally posted it.


So what ?? magic might be paranormal but that doesn't mean its supernatural.
The definition says supernatural so your answer is again a pathetic attempt to deflect and dishonest as usual.


Why do you persist in lying, I told you before I had shared one from a different person on a blog, that was claiming animals seem to know what food to look for instinctivly.
And that again displays you have no idea what constitutes proof or evidence. Now explain what you mean by 'instinctively’.


And there is pattern in every diet I have looked up, and as for target food itself I allready told you abalone is a good one.
A diet is nothing more than a list unless you know what you are looking at and you clearly do not. This has been clearly shown by many posters.


Anyone with half a brain knows what in the wild means.
You prove that statement to be incorrect as usual as you dont know what it means yet fit your criteria.

I have many types of birds in my garden that forage for food, nest and roost there, foxes and the occasional deer. Not to mention insects worms, slugs and snails frogs,toads and newts. The birds are classified as 'WILD BIRDS'. There is even a hawk that hunts them and a heron that tries to catch the fish in my pond. So my garden can in this context be looked at as 'IN THE WILD'.

We also have many plants that we cultivate and so at the same time my garden can be classified as an area under cultivation. So it is both and this is why I asked you to put your use of ‘IN THE WILD’ into context. You failed.

You do not understand what context is and appear too uneducated to be able to understand the distinctions.


Yep and thats the ONLY definition out of 8 different ones that doesn't. So which ones do you think are correct? The one out of eight that supports your deluded fantasy?
Nope. You claimed they all do but will only offer a cherry picked quote from a site you refuse to link too. As for eight other sites where are they? Why do you not refer to them if you are aware there is a problem with the only link you will supply?

The link you maintains backs you, that takes me to google front page used to work right up until the time I showed how you cherry picked from it. You display a dishonest approach in every post you make which I will demonstrate clearly in my next reply to you.


edit on 26-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Overarching overall; all-encompassing ⇒ an overarching concept

Unifies To make into or become a unit; consolidate.

Plurality one of the "twelve pure concepts of the understanding" proposed by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason

the most votes for any choice in an election, but not necessarily a majority

So your link is telling you that the theory of evolution unites all the biological sciences with one single concept that is overwhelmingly accepted as true

It is telling you that as far as science is concerned this is as close to a fact as you can get within science

So again you fail to prove anything other than your total and wilful ignorance on a subject you show no ability to understand.
I love how you totally skipped over the most important one called hypothesis. See how dishonest you are.

So again you ignore information to promote your agenda and call someone else dishonest whilst doing so.

From you really. Let’s look at this a little closer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foundation stone of your own personally constructed religion is the bible and your claim it proves 'we are not from here' and that aliens brought us here.

Please explain these two statements:

On page 10 This Post You made the claim in answer to:

'His favourite animal is the ant eater yet his very own criteria means the ant and therefore the anteater cannot be from here if he were correct.'

It would appear that none of us are from here, just like the bible claims.
But you make the complete opposite claim on another thread in This Post


Well also like it states in the bible, earth is not our home and none of the things from our home was brought here. Which means none of the food we eat was intended for us.
Before you claim you were only referring to humans in This Post in answer to:

'Is that so. So nothing on this planet has this mythical 'Target Food'. You no doubt will tell another lie to cover your mistake but you can’t escape you claim the bible says nothing is from here. So nothing is natural, native to this planet. No target food then.'

You replied:


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.
and further in This post in answer to:

'So if nothing is native to this planet do you include bacteria, plants, and insects in fact all organic life?'

You replied:


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.
So it is clear that you are defending your claim that you say the bible clearly supports. That no one is from here denying that you have before being shown conflicted always claimed the opposite as you did on the other thread.

This is just one of many lies I have caught you out in. Please explain the above and please use honesty when replying not your usual lies

edit on 26-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
You know...the name of this topic is like an Oxymoron.

It is impossible for Science to be against Evolution since the One time Theory and Now FACT that is Evolution is the end result of using the Scientific Method to get at first the Theory and now the Proven Fact.

Still...you still get the occational creationist holdout who screams...It's just a Theory! It's just a Theory!

Well...sorry Charlie! Evolution stopped being a Theory some time ago as mapping many species as well as the Human Genome as well as mapping in detail and using certain Genetic aspects in our DNA in order to Genetically Engineer specific vacines, and create Gene Therapy that could not have even existed if it were not for the Evolutionary Process...as well as study of the evolving DNA of Bacteria that have though Natural Selection become immune to standard Antibiotics and thus Genetic Study of such DNA is imparitive to develop Antibiotics that will destroy such evolved Bacteria.

At this point it is Evolution not only a proven FACT but is so obviously apparent that when anyone of the ever dwindling in number HOLDOUTS start screaming again...It's Just a THEORY! I have to chuckle as I say to them...Survival of the Fittest! Your kind is almost dead and gome now...time for a New Strain!

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

care to debunk my above post that uses actual scientific facts and research done by evolutionists that has been peer reviewed?

humans are physically incapable of giving birth enough times to overcome the deleterious mutation rate.

science ceases to become science when one refuses to consider the possibility that they could be wrong.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Some theories have been around longer than that. Please learn something.
Only problem is that evolution is in part a hypothesis...


volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Evolution

So as you can see, evolution is in part a hypothesis, which usually means there are parts they are guessing about. A theory is only as strong as its weakest link, and this is it.




Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.
It's not a scientific theory, and its not been proven. No one has ever even proven that a species can change into another species.
No one has ever proven that a species has changed into another species.
No one has ever proven that specieation is actually species changing species.
No one has ever proven that species no longer breeding is them changing species.
These assumptions are the backbone of your belief. It's a faith, because you you BELIEVE them to be true with no proof.
Your faith has clouded your vision, and you fail to realize there are some rather large holes for you to fall into.




It seems you do not understand the meaning of theory in science just as you do not understand other terms.
You mean how you don't understand, or don't want to understand the term hypothesis.




Here you blunder again. Take a course when you get to high school.
There is no blunder when I say that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.




You continue to not understand basic terms. Theories explain facts. Evolution is a fact. There are theories explaining the fact of evolution. There are theories of evolution. They explain the fact of evolution.
But whitout proof its a fact in your mind.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Magic can be supernatural.
Only in missunderstanding.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your answer is again pathetic. They made it into an encyclopaedia on the subject so again all you have in reply is childish denial and dishonesty. No wonder you avoided answering it when I originally posted it.
Your crazy colin, you are so far from the truth. You refuse to accept the definitions that are obvious by turning and looking for opinions through books. How lame and dishonest is that.




The definition says supernatural so your answer is again a pathetic attempt to deflect and dishonest as usual.
Your book in incorrect opinion is NOT a dictionary.




And that again displays you have no idea what constitutes proof or evidence. Now explain what you mean by 'instinctively’.
Well then apparently you haven't been paying attention. The whole purpose behind Target Food is that all species have an instinct to be directed to a target food.




A diet is nothing more than a list unless you know what you are looking at and you clearly do not. This has been clearly shown by many posters.
ya but who made the list, and why do they always choose the same list.




You prove that statement to be incorrect as usual as you dont know what it means yet fit your criteria.
Actually you proved that statment to be false.




I have many types of birds in my garden that forage for food, nest and roost there, foxes and the occasional deer. Not to mention insects worms, slugs and snails frogs,toads and newts. The birds are classified as 'WILD BIRDS'. There is even a hawk that hunts them and a heron that tries to catch the fish in my pond. So my garden can in this context be looked at as 'IN THE WILD'.
Why are they classified as wild birds.




We also have many plants that we cultivate and so at the same time my garden can be classified as an area under cultivation. So it is both and this is why I asked you to put your use of ‘IN THE WILD’ into context. You failed.

You do not understand what context is and appear too uneducated to be able to understand the distinctions.
In the wild is in the wild, there is no context that is needed.




Nope. You claimed they all do but will only offer a cherry picked quote from a site you refuse to link too. As for eight other sites where are they? Why do you not refer to them if you are aware there is a problem with the only link you will supply?
Sure but because YOUR the one picking one definition from eight possible sources, it appears more that YOU are the one cherry picking.




Please explain these two statements:

On page 10 This Post You made the claim in answer to:

'His favourite animal is the ant eater yet his very own criteria means the ant and therefore the anteater cannot be from here if he were correct.
The ant eater and ants obviously come from the same place.




But you make the complete opposite claim on another thread in This Post
Yes earth is not our home, we are not from here.




Before you claim you were only referring to humans in This Post in answer to:

'Is that so. So nothing on this planet has this mythical 'Target Food'. You no doubt will tell another lie to cover your mistake but you can’t escape you claim the bible says nothing is from here. So nothing is natural, native to this planet. No target food then.'
You lack insight, if the food was also brought down here, then yes they would have their target food.




So it is clear that you are defending your claim that you say the bible clearly supports. That no one is from here denying that you have before being shown conflicted always claimed the opposite as you did on the other thread.

This is just one of many lies I have caught you out in. Please explain the above and please use honesty when replying not your usual lies
Things that can live in the air, is hard to say if a natural disaster would wipe them out, I guess it all depends on the disaster.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your crazy colin, you are so far from the truth.
You are in no position to call anyone crazy. You also display you do not understand the word truth, it is yet another concept that is alien to you.


You refuse to accept the definitions that are obvious by turning and looking for opinions through books. How lame and dishonest is that.
And you come to that conclusion whilst you are rejecting definitions and rejecting examples from an encyclopaedia that shows supernatural and magic to be the same thing.


Your book in incorrect opinion is NOT a dictionary.
No the link to the WIKI DEFINITION appears to be another wiki source you deny because it shows you to be completely wrong. You have no integrity at all


Well then apparently you haven't been paying attention. The whole purpose behind Target Food is that all species have an instinct to be directed to a target food.
I asked you to explain what you think instinctively means not give me your uninformed opinion on target food fantasy. So do that.


ya but who made the list, and why do they always choose the same list.
Who cares, it is a list. The point I made was: A diet is nothing more than a list unless you know what you are looking at and you clearly do not. This has been clearly shown by many posters and by your posts.


Why are they classified as wild birds.
They are listed in the book of British Wild Birds.


In the wild is in the wild, there is no context that is needed.
Proving without doubt you do not understand the importance of context


Sure but because YOUR the one picking one definition from eight possible sources, it appears more that YOU are the one cherry picking.
Yet again you accuse me of not accepting information you present from a source you won’t or can’t provide a link to and refuse to provide a link to any of the other 8 sources you claim say the same thing also not linked to.

That is a very dishonest way to conduct a discussion and very deceitful when calling someone a liar. I can only conclude my suspicions are correct and you only cherry pick what you believe supports you. That FYI is an example of evidence that implicates you as dishonest

I also made two posts and I don’t appreciate you trying to lose the information from either by confusing the issues and mixing the two separate posts. I have asked you not to do this in the past as it is another dishonest tactic you employ. Don’t do it again



edit on 26-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The ant eater and ants obviously come from the same place.
You maintain that nothing man does on this planet is natural because he is not from here. Now you admit that the ant eater and the ant are also not from here so nothing they do on this planet can be considered natural


Yes earth is not our home, we are not from here.
The point again is you are claiming that man is not from here but do not mention you now say nothing else is either. You go on to preach your target food sermon continuing to omit that piece of information whilst claiming only man is not natural. That is deception. A dishonest representation and is commonly known as lying.


You lack insight, if the food was also brought down here, then yes they would have their target food.
If the food was brought here according to your so called logic it is not from earth and so is artificial. Not natural, no longer can be considered target food by your own criteria.

This means nothing on this planet has a target food and you have nothing to support you that says different.


Things that can live in the air, is hard to say if a natural disaster would wipe them out, I guess it all depends on the disaster.
If your poorly formed reply is meant to mean bacteria may remain then we come back to another point I made that you did not answer. When all other life was brought to earth they would have no defence to the bacteria and germs of this planet.

You have used this argument when you made claims that no human would live past puberty if not for medical intervention and due to your new revelation this would also apply to every other animal. Why do we not see this in every animal because you have claimed many times they do not suffer with illness?

Don’t tell me they are healthy because they have target food as I have already shown using your criteria that they don’t.

edit on 26-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You are in no position to call anyone crazy. You also display you do not understand the word truth, it is yet another concept that is alien to you.
Your faith has to many holes in it.




And you come to that conclusion whilst you are rejecting definitions and rejecting examples from an encyclopaedia that shows supernatural and magic to be the same thing.
You clearly don't know how to read, you better go back and read it again. It says paranormal and magic, not supernatural your blind.




No the link to the WIKI DEFINITION appears to be another wiki source you deny because it shows you to be completely wrong. You have no integrity at all
At least I have inegrity knowing the difference between magic, paranormal and the supernatural.




I asked you to explain what you think instinctively means not give me your uninformed opinion on target food fantasy. So do that.
That is my explanation and how its explained in Target Food.

And you keep claiming that Target Food is not real as there is no proof, so what, there is no proof of evolution and plenty of people believe in it. The only difference is there is actually proof in Target Food.




Who cares, it is a list. The point I made was: A diet is nothing more than a list unless you know what you are looking at and you clearly do not. This has been clearly shown by many posters and by your posts.
I don't mean who observed the list, I mean who wrote it for the species.




They are listed in the book of British Wild Birds.
I'm shocked that you finally acknowledge the word wild.




Proving without doubt you do not understand the importance of context
That is a fully supported sentance, dont hurt yourself.




Yet again you accuse me of not accepting information you present from a source you won’t or can’t provide a link to and refuse to provide a link to any of the other 8 sources you claim say the same thing also not linked to.
I allready shared those links at one time, I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.




That is a very dishonest way to conduct a discussion and very deceitful when calling someone a liar. I can only conclude my suspicions are correct and you only cherry pick what you believe supports you. That FYI is an example of evidence that implicates you as dishonest
I chose all eight that I could find, and you only accepted one that feeds into your delusional fantasy.




I also made two posts and I don’t appreciate you trying to lose the information from either by confusing the issues and mixing the two separate posts. I have asked you not to do this in the past as it is another dishonest tactic you employ. Don’t do it again
Well it would help if I didn't have to keep telling you the same thing over and over again.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You maintain that nothing man does on this planet is natural because he is not from here. Now you admit that the ant eater and the ant are also not from here so nothing they do on this planet can be considered natural
I explained this allready to you that anteaters are not sentient beings, as the definition only excludes humans. I didn't write the definition so get over it, but best of all learn from it.




The point again is you are claiming that man is not from here but do not mention you now say nothing else is either. You go on to preach your target food sermon continuing to omit that piece of information whilst claiming only man is not natural. That is deception. A dishonest representation and is commonly known as lying.
We are only aware of our own doings, and its assumed that all life is from here, even man, that doesn't mean they are correct.




If the food was brought here according to your so called logic it is not from earth and so is artificial. Not natural, no longer can be considered target food by your own criteria.

This means nothing on this planet has a target food and you have nothing to support you that says different.
Again it all depends on if any of the food for any of the life was also brought here.




If your poorly formed reply is meant to mean bacteria may remain then we come back to another point I made that you did not answer. When all other life was brought to earth they would have no defence to the bacteria and germs of this planet.
Which is why man usually takes vaccines and normal medical intervention through out life.




You have used this argument when you made claims that no human would live past puberty if not for medical intervention and due to your new revelation this would also apply to every other animal. Why do we not see this in every animal because you have claimed many times they do not suffer with illness?
According to Pye, but I don't know that its every living person wouldn't live past puberty, I never said that.




Don’t tell me they are healthy because they have target food as I have already shown using your criteria that they don’t.
Well if a species did have target food, it would be healty.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your faith has to many holes in it.
Childishly pathetic. Shouldn’t you have end your reply with ner ner nan rer ner.


You clearly don't know how to read, you better go back and read it again. It says paranormal and magic, not supernatural your blind.
You clearly only read what you want to see. Magic (paranormal)

Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation, ceremony, ritual, the casting of spells or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature
Clearly it says supernatural. Your ignorance is beyond a joke.


At least I have inegrity knowing the difference between magic, paranormal and the supernatural.
You obviously don’t even when given links that tell you just that.


That is my explanation and how its explained in Target Food
So you don’t know what instinctively means either. Tragic


And you keep claiming that Target Food is not real as there is no proof, so what, there is no proof of evolution and plenty of people believe in it.
Nope. Target food is just a fantasy you are too weak to admit is just that. Evolution is not a belief and again you display you cannot tell the difference. Beyond tragic.


The only difference is there is actually proof in Target Food.
When do you plan on sharing it with others as there has been nothing yet.


I don't mean who observed the list, I mean who wrote it for the species.
I know what you were implying. Observations in the field and the theory of evolution gives you the answer that no one wrote it and it is not fixed as you claim from your personal ignorance.


I'm shocked that you finally acknowledge the word wild.
I never rejected the word wild. Again I asked you to put into context what you meant by 'IN THE WILD'. You have proved countless times this is beyond your ability to comprehend. I gave you another example explaining it which has apparently gone over your head as you have not mentioned it. Your answer is beyond feeble


I allready shared those links at one time, I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.
Yeah, right. So I provided you a link that you refuse to accept despite your claim that they all support you. I think I have enough evidence to prove that you indeed provided a broken link to hide the fact you cherry pick from it if in fact it even exists. Tragically dishonest.


I chose all eight that I could find, and you only accepted one that feeds into your delusional fantasy.
You could prove me wrong by simply posting them but you refuse. Indicates you are a liar to me. You could comment on the one I provided but choose to ignore it confirming you are a liar.


Well it would help if I didn't have to keep telling you the same thing over and over again.
You mean refusing to answer my questions over and over again just as you have done in your post that I am replying to.


edit on 26-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I explained this allready to you that anteaters are not sentient beings, as the definition only excludes humans. I didn't write the definition so get over it, but best of all learn from it.
Funny a few pages back you claimed animals are sentient beings. Still, what definition?

Please link me to the source that wrote the definition and the definition as you claimed in the other thread this is ALL your idea.


We are only aware of our own doings, and its assumed that all life is from here, even man, that doesn't mean they are correct.
Nope. You were claiming that this is clearly written in the bible. You stated


It would appear that none of us are from here, just like the bible claims.
So your answer as usual does not address my question. Why did you represent man as being the only creature on earth that is not natural when you claim due to the bible to know that no animals are natural by your own often stated criteria?


Again it all depends on if any of the food for any of the life was also brought here.
Nope, not nearly good enough. Anything that was brought to earth is, by your criteria not natural. I'll go further you claim everything man does is not natural because he uses technology.

So your aliens are the next step up. They brought all life here by machines. They are galactic farmers, zoo keepers and that would make nothing on this planet natural and target food a groundless fantasy. Please explain.


Which is why man usually takes vaccines and normal medical intervention through out life.
Nope. I have already established using your criteria and argument that ALL animals face exactly the same things we do as none of us are from this planet and therefore according to you cannot be natural. Why do animals not suffer the same or need the medical intervention throughout their lives you claim man does.


According to Pye, but I don't know that its every living person wouldn't live past puberty, I never said that.
The hell you didn’t. Remember pages about the bushman? Still that changes nothing. Again (and the bible says it’s true) nothing is from here (your words)so nothing is natural so why do animals not suffer the same as man. Why do they live past puberty without medical intervention?


Well if a species did have target food, it would be healty.
But by your own criteria nothing on this planet does so they are not healthy. I have never seen pictures of Lions and zebra's queuing at a clinic for their shots. Explain how they live past puberty.


edit on 26-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join