Science against evolution

reply to post by colin42

Childishly pathetic. Shouldn’t you have end your reply with ner ner nan rer ner

Well it does.

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

As you will find, according to the definition of Supernatural in wiki, paranormal is whimsicilly associated to the term.

With neoplatonic and medieval scholastic origins, the metaphysical considerations can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected. In popular culture and fiction, the supernatural is whimsically associated with the paranormal and the occult, this differs from traditional concepts in some religions, such as Catholicism, where divine miracles are considered supernatural.

Supernatural Which is obviously why you chose the term magic over Supernatural, because it suits your fantasy. As you can see your wrong.

Clearly it says supernatural. Your ignorance is beyond a joke.

Sure but only through a whimsical connection.

You obviously don’t even when given links that tell you just that.

Only if you don't understand the term whimsical.

So you don’t know what instinctively means either. Tragic

Instinct is being used to choose food if you didn't realize this.

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.

And I'm sure youll come up with another theory to cover the existing theory.

When do you plan on sharing it with others as there has been nothing yet.

OH I have, I'm just not going to play the colin repeat game with you.

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.

If so then you agree that all species have a predetermined food source.

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

Hows this for you, anything in the wild, might be considered natural.

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.

You are the only one on here providing broken links.

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.

You mean repost them and no I'm not going to play the repeat game.

You mean refusing to answer my questions over and over again just as you have done in your post that I am replying to.

If I have answered them half a dozen times and your not smart enough to get it at that point, then whats the use.

Funny a few pages back you claimed animals are sentient beings. Still, what definition?

I said they aren't.

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.

About what subject.

Nope. You were claiming that this is clearly written in the bible. You stated

NO we assume, the bible says earth is not our home.

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?

Because that is always how humans have looked at this topic, its assumed home to the animals but clearly from the definition its not home to humans.

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.

For the fifth time that depends on whether or not they had ot

reply to post by colin42


Other things brought here with them. If their enviroment is here, then all things would indicate for the most part that they are naturaly home.

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.

It's not groundless, even you are complaining how no animals seem to have target food, and your mostly correct. Very few.

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.

First off you claimed a long time ago that animals get just as sick as we do, are you backing out of that now? Second if some of their enviroment was brought here along with them, it can obviously help.

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?

Because animals are not GMO's like humans are.

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.

They are not GMO's.

reply to post by itsthetooth

As you will find, according to the definition of Supernatural in wiki, paranormal is whimsicilly associated to the term.

The subject was supernatural = magic.

Sure but only through a whimsical connection.

To paranormal it says. What does it say about magic, you know the thing we were meant to be talking about?

Only if you don't understand the term whimsical.

To tell you the truth I don’t care about your avoidance tactics.

Instinct is being used to choose food if you didn't realize this.

You have already shown you can’t tell me what you believe instinct is, there is no need for further examples

And I'm sure youll come up with another theory to cover the existing theory.

Nope. I have come up with an argument that shows target food to be the fantasy I have always told you it is.

OH I have, I'm just not going to play the colin repeat game with you.

The repeat game as you call it is because you refuse to answer questions asked and never supply evidence to back up your opinions and then claim it as proof. Like below

If so then you agree that all species have a predetermined food source.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Still this nonsense is going to end soon.

Hows this for you, anything in the wild, might be considered natural.

You really don’t understand context do you

excuse 1. You are the only one on here providing broken links.

Excuse 2. You mean repost them and no I'm not going to play the repeat game.

Excuses not accepted

If I have answered them half a dozen times and your not smart enough to get it at that point, then whats the use.

If you answered them you answered as you have above. You don’t like the question so you make up an answer to what a question you do like. So, no you do not answer questions or provide evidence.

Again you have combined two separate posts when I asked you not to even when I point out to you that this is a dishonest tactic. More proof if I needed it that you intend never to approach this subject with honesty.

reply to post by colin42

The subject was supernatural = magic.

Supernatural wiki As I stated before, the term magic doesn't appear anywhere in the wiki for supernatural.

To paranormal it says. What does it say about magic, you know the thing we were meant to be talking about?

I never claimed magic, I only claimed supternatural.

Supernatural agencies is mentioned in the Magic wiki, but again only with a whimsical connection.

To tell you the truth I don’t care about your avoidance tactics.

Trying to pass of whimsical meanings, it appears to be you that is in avoidance.

You have already shown you can’t tell me what you believe instinct is, there is no need for further examples

What do you mean what do I believe it to be, it sure in the hell isn't evolution, thats for sure. Pretty sure its intelligence. Now is the part where you start claiming that evolution is all knowing and all seeing and all doing, and makes sure all species has food to eat.

Nope. I have come up with an argument that shows target food to be the fantasy I have always told you it is.

If the argument is anything like the frail theory that evolution rests on, I'm seriously not arroused.

You really don’t understand context do you

Should I be going by the definition or did you have your own theory on this term as well.

con·text
/ˈkäntekst/Noun
1.The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
2.The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

context google

The example I used clealy sets the enviroment to answer your question.

Excuses not accepted

You are, and I wont.

If you answered them you answered as you have above. You don’t like the question so you make up an answer to what a question you do like. So, no you do not answer questions or provide evidence.

Again you have combined two separate posts when I asked you not to even when I point out to you that this is a dishonest tactic. More proof if I needed it that you intend never to approach this subject with honesty.

Repost the part in question and I'll try again.

reply to post by itsthetooth

This illustrates why you combining the posts is a dishonest tactic you wrote:

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.

My reply was

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.

Your reply is now

About what subject.

You referred to a definition. Please supply that definition as asked.

NO we assume, the bible says earth is not our home.

So dishonest. tooth you claim the bible is a clear historical document. You claim the bible, your historical document tells us we are not from here.

It would appear that none of us are from here, just like the bible claims.

You again show utter disregard for honesty. You will not be allowed to get away with this again.

Because that is always how humans have looked at this topic, its assumed home to the animals but clearly from the definition its not home to humans.

You just gave me the same answer as before. So you are the one that makes sure the same questions have to be continuously asked.

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?

For the fifth time that depends on whether or not they had Other things brought here with them. If their enviroment is here, then all things would indicate for the most part that they are naturaly home.

And again. You have claimed many times that if the process is not natural then the food cannot be target food. Geo engineering a planet and transporting all life to it from another planet cannot be regarded as natural. So it does not matter if the so called target food was brought here or not. It cannot be target food. Your rules, your criteria. This alone proves target food fantasy to be just that. A fantasy.

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

It's not groundless, even you are complaining how no animals seem to have target food, and your mostly correct. Very few

Nope again you lie to save your fantasy. I have never complained animals do not seem to have target food. I have told you it is a fantasy made up by you and I am 100% correct.

First off you claimed a long time ago that animals get just as sick as we do, are you backing out of that now? Second if some of their enviroment was brought here along with them, it can obviously help.

Nope. You may not have noticed but I am hanging you with your own rope.

You claimed that NO animals suffer from the illnesses we do because only we are not from here. Obviously you were lying as being an expert on the bible you knew no animals were from here.

My question Given that ALL life is not from here, why do animals not suffer the same or need the medical intervention throughout their lives you claim man does. You have not answered this so no wonder I have to keep asking the same questions. Please answer

Because animals are not GMO's like humans are.

Animals were transported here just as humans were. Your bible claims they are made by the same god. These animals are just as alien to this planet as any human according to you and your bible so again your answer fails.

They are not GMO's.

You claim and the bible documents show ALL life is not from this planet, although you admit you don’t know about bacteria so we ALL face the exact same problems any alien species would face. Your pathetic GMO claim is not acceptable and in fact if man was genetically altered to work on this planet and the animals were not we should see the opposite of what you claim. We see neither.

To sum up. The bible tells us all life was transported to this planet. No life here is natural and so target food does not exist anywhere but in your head as your fantasy.

EDIT
Oh and you left this part out.

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.

reply to post by itsthetooth
You dont trust wiki. Why should I?

The rest of your nonsense is just you playing the same old dishonest games. Its my turn to refuse to repeat the same thing over and over.

You need to concentrate on my destruction of target food fantasy. You are not doing very well at the moment.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well then I want to see the paper work that explains how exactly it was witnessed that a species has changed into another species. You people are such idiots, if we had this information we would also be able to tell in advance what we are about to turn into, and I don't see any work related to predicting what a new species will be.

Evidence was already posted. The claim of prediction is false.

And so I rest my case, you have to use hypothesis because you cant use science or fact.

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

But theories are not necessarily proof, as is in the case of evolution. You don't prove a theory, with another theory, you prove it with facts and science.

Please learn the meaning of theory when used in science.

Hey you can't calle me close minded, I'm the one that believes in aliens for pete sake.

Learn the meaning of closed minded.

Evolution is held together in part by faith.
No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, thats faith.

False.

Reading up on biology is not going to help me understand more about your faith.

Take a basic course in biology to learn some basics.

And so here is the plot in all of this. No on has ever proven or witnessed that a species can change into another species. Your faith allows you to believe that it can but I'm not interested in faith, if I were I would turn to a new religion.

Evidence was already posted.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Because animals are not GMO's like humans are.

False. Humans are not a GMO. Humans are evolved from other animals.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Supernatural wiki As I stated before, the term magic doesn't appear anywhere in the wiki for supernatural.

As you have been told countless times, the wikipedia is a stepping stone to other information. Pretending it contains everything is a foolish tactic. Attempting to claim something does not exist because a single source does not mention it only speaks about the source and not the information of interest.

reply to post by colin42

This illustrates why you combining the posts is a dishonest tactic you wrote:

I see, so its just ok for you to do.

You referred to a definition. Please supply that definition as asked.

Definition to what?

So dishonest. tooth you claim the bible is a clear historical document. You claim the bible, your historical document tells us we are not from here.

Yes, we assume as humans we are from earth but the bible clearly states otherwise.

You again show utter disregard for honesty. You will not be allowed to get away with this again.

Well do you have something that proves we are from here?

You just gave me the same answer as before. So you are the one that makes sure the same questions have to be continuously asked.

I can see where and why you are probably getting confused.
You see as far as most humans are concearned, we are told that we are from planet earth.
However the definition of the term natural will clearly point to the fact that humans are not considered natural to this planet. The bible also tells a story of how earth is not our home.

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?

Only because we always assume and treat the situation as though we are all from here, but we are not. We yeild the right of way to wild life because of the damage we can cause to this planet. The problem is that no matter what you say and no matter what you ask, none of us are from here, its just that it's not accepted to usually think about.

And again. You have claimed many times that if the process is not natural then the food cannot be target food.

That is correct.

Geo engineering a planet and transporting all life to it from another planet cannot be regarded as natural.

That is correct, now you getting the understanding. They could have however brought many things over that accomodate species, its really had to say.

So it does not matter if the so called target food was brought here or not. It cannot be target food. Your rules, your criteria. This alone proves target food fantasy to be just that. A fantasy.

Wrong because even if you move a species from one planet to another, they will still have the instinctive qualities to eat the food that was intended for them.

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

You always have to rule out extinctions first but after that, what you have left over is what you have now. Target food does not exist based on when a species is in his home territory, it exists when the proper intended food is simply available.

Nope again you lie to save your fantasy. I have never complained animals do not seem to have target food. I have told you it is a fantasy made up by you and I am 100% correct.

The simple fact that they have an instinct to search for a specific pre determined food, would say you are very wrong.

Nope. You may not have noticed but I am hanging you with your own rope.

You claimed that NO animals suffer from the illnesses we do because only we are not from here. Obviously you were lying as being an expert on the bible you knew no animals were from here.

Actually I was hanging you with YOUR own rope. It was you that claimed that animals have just as much sickness as we do. I'm saying we have always had more sickness, and that is because we are a GMO.

My question Given that ALL life is not from here, why do animals not suffer the same or need the medical intervention throughout their lives you claim man does. You have not answered this so no wonder I have to keep asking the same questions. Please answer

Because we are a GMO.

Animals were transported here just as humans were. Your bible claims they are made by the same god. These animals are just as alien to this planet as any human according to you and your bible so again your answer fails.

There is no proof that humans or animals were made by the creator that transported us here. In fact there is much evidence on the contrary, which is why it appears more that we were all abducted from other planets.

reply to post by colin42

Animals were transported here just as humans were. Your bible claims they are made by the same god. These animals are just as alien to this planet as any human according to you and your bible so again your answer fails.

Sure they are alien to the planet, but depending on how much of their enviroment got brought here along with them could explain an ability to fit in, in some cases.

You claim and the bible documents show ALL life is not from this planet, although you admit you don’t know about bacteria so we ALL face the exact same problems any alien species would face. Your pathetic GMO claim is not acceptable and in fact if man was genetically altered to work on this planet and the animals were not we should see the opposite of what you claim. We see neither.

Well now your going along with Pye's idea of intervention, but I have to tell you that I always assumed that the high amount of defects we have in our genes are from punishments handed down from god. He did make it clear that the punishments would be handed down to our offspring, and what a better way to do it. However if you want to believe in the theory for the moment that we were perhaps created, then there is no way that it would have been by the same guy. IMO whoever created all this life obviously have a love for making life, its absurd to think of a grand creator destroying life the way that God did.

To sum up. The bible tells us all life was transported to this planet. No life here is natural and so target food does not exist anywhere but in your head as your fantasy.

Your assuming that any and all food for any species was intentionally left behind, and I never said that. The only reason OUR food was left behind is because god claimed that nothing brought here was from our home, in other words none of the food we eat is our intended food. Then if you want to make assumptions about target food and animals, you have to weight in extinctions too.

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.

Because first of all they are not GMO's, Secondly, I never said they don't have target food, but I'm in fact on the fence about their food.

You dont trust wiki. Why should I?

The rest of your nonsense is just you playing the same old dishonest games. Its my turn to refuse to repeat the same thing over and over.

You need to concentrate on my destruction of target food fantasy. You are not doing very well at the moment.

You haven't offered anything that proves target food to be false, so I don't see wher your coming from.

reply to post by stereologist

Evidence was already posted. The claim of prediction is false.

Your evidence is not acceptable. Just because a species is no longer to breed with its own is not proof that a new species has emerged, you must take me for a fool. As I indicated earlier, I have a neighbor that is unable to successfully breed with her husband, and doctors have ruled out all commonly known issues that can cause this. Why are they not suggesting to her that she has speciated.

So then your admitting that evolution is NOT predictable. Good. so now that we have that established that, you can also see that speciation is falsly used to create the perception of a species changing into another species. So what is it really that evolution does, and what do we really know about it? It looks like nothing. It doesn't tell us a damn thing.

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

There is also hypothesis that support good parts of evolution and this is the weakest link to the whole story.


hypothesis

This is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is a guess. So when you want to get serious about having a debate on ATS about something that you believe in like a faith, you should choose something that isn't a guess.

Evolution is guessing that speciation means a species is changing into another species. Evolution is guessing that because they no longer breed, its proof they have changed species. Evolution is guessing that a species can change into another species, and we also have no proof of that either. There is much speculation based on the fact that we have some life here that is very similar, this is also false.

Please learn the meaning of theory when used in science.

According to the definition, theories are also not always right, and can sometimes be proven wrong, as would be the case in evolution. There is simply no proof to hold evolution together.

False.

Speciation has only been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria and some insects. The bottom line is there isn't even proof that these options are available in all life. Then when those changes do happen, like in bacteria or viruses, you still end up with the same germ, its just a different strain, which is also proof that evolution is assuming a new species has emerged. Totally false.

Take a basic course in biology to learn some basics.

There is no proof in biology that a species can change into another species, there is no proof that I share a common ancestor with apes. Dream on.

Evidence was already posted.

Your example of speciation is not acceptable as it doesn't prove that a species CAN change into another species. Like I stated earlier just because humans might come out one say with naturally green hair doesn't mean they are any less human of a species. So you see it is possible to have changes without a species changing species.

False. Humans are not a GMO. Humans are evolved from other animals.

Aside from the fact that we share a lot of DNA with many other creatures, there is no proof to this.

As you have been told countless times, the wikipedia is a stepping stone to other information. Pretending it contains everything is a foolish tactic. Attempting to claim something does not exist because a single source does not mention it only speaks about the source and not the information of interest.

Your talking about a term used in biblical times, I doubt very seriously if wiki isn't going to have something accurate on it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

This illustrates why you combining the posts is a dishonest tactic you wrote:

I see, so its just ok for you to do.

I have never combined two separate posts. I may have had to post two replies to your drivel and that is different.

Definition to what?

And your dishonesty continues.

Yes, we assume as humans we are from earth but the bible clearly states otherwise.

tooth. When will you ever give an honest reply? You claim the bible is a clear historical document. You claim the bible, your historical document tells us we are not from here.

It does not matter what is assumed. This is about what you claim and you claim no organic life is from here and you are supported by the bible.

Well do you have something that proves we are from here?

I don’t have to. I have shown using you rules, your criteria that target food cannot exist. So you need to address that.

I can see where and why you are probably getting confused.
You see as far as most humans are concearned, we are told that we are from planet earth.

This is immaterial to the argument I am making

However the definition of the term natural will clearly point to the fact that humans are not considered natural to this planet. The bible also tells a story of how earth is not our home.

You fail again. You have claimed many times that if any processes are involved then those actions and food cannot be regarded as natural. Your rules.

Only because we always assume and treat the situation as though we are all from here, but we are not. We yeild the right of way to wild life because of the damage we can cause to this planet. The problem is that no matter what you say and no matter what you ask, none of us are from here, its just that it's not accepted to usually think about.

I am not arguing about whether we are from here or not. I asked you:

'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 defined by your own often stated criteria?

And AGAIN you have not answered me.

And again. You have claimed many times that if the process is not natural then the food cannot be target food.

That is correct.

Well done

Geo engineering a planet and transporting all life to it from another planet cannot be regarded as natural.

That is correct, now you getting the understanding. They could have however brought many things over that accomodate species, its really had to say.

Nope. According to you ANYTHING that involves a process can not be considered natural. You claim all organic life was brought to a devastated planet. That means earth had to be geo engineered with machines. Organic life collected, transported and placed on earth by machines.

By your own rules and criteria nothing on this planet can be considered natural. So using your rules it is not hard to say. Your target food cannot exist.

Wrong because even if you move a species from one planet to another, they will still have the instinctive qualities to eat the food that was intended for them.

Nope. Does not matter if food was 'intended' for them or not. That food due to the actions of the aliens can no longer be considered natural. It cannot be called target food.

You always have to rule out extinctions first but after that, what you have left over is what you have now.

This has no bearing on the issue. Whatever has become extinct was not natural anyway by your rules and criteria.

Target food does not exist based on when a species is in his home territory, it exists when the proper intended food is simply available.

Nope. You have claimed over many pages. Target food must have grown 'naturally' with no processes. In the case of this planet according to you and the bible, nothing is from here. Nothing is here without processes involving machinery and tools. Nothing is natural and target food cannot exist.

The simple fact that they have an instinct to search for a specific pre determined food, would say you are very wrong.

Ignoring the fact that you cannot explain what instinct is any food the animal finds, that food is the result of processes that are not natural. Target food does not exist.

Actually I was hanging you with YOUR own rope. It was you that claimed that animals have just as much sickness as we do. I'm saying we have always had more sickness, and that is because we are a GMO.

Nope you claimed that this is because animals have target food and we dont. I have already shown that they have not. Your rules and your criteria. No processes allowed.

You also claimed only humans were not from here but we know now that was another lie.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your evidence is not acceptable. Just because a species is no longer to breed with its own is not proof that a new species has emerged, you must take me for a fool. As I indicated earlier, I have a neighbor that is unable to successfully breed with her husband, and doctors have ruled out all commonly known issues that can cause this. Why are they not suggesting to her that she has speciated.

So then your admitting that evolution is NOT predictable. Good. so now that we have that established that, you can also see that speciation is falsly used to create the perception of a species changing into another species. So what is it really that evolution does, and what do we really know about it? It looks like nothing. It doesn't tell us a damn thing.

Evidence was already posted and is not related to your statement here. Your neighbor story shows that you need to take a basic course in biology.

The unpredictability of evolution is due to issues beyond the genome. Your invalid inference from that position is laughable as have been all of your statements.

There is also hypothesis that support good parts of evolution and this is the weakest link to the whole story.

Take a basic course and learn before posting illogical statements.

This is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is a guess.

Now all you have to learn is how an hypothesis fits into science.

Evolution is guessing that speciation means a species is changing into another species. Evolution is guessing that because they no longer breed, its proof they have changed species. Evolution is guessing that a species can change into another species, and we also have no proof of that either. There is much speculation based on the fact that we have some life here that is very similar, this is also false.

These statements do not follow from the fact that a hypothesis has been formulated. Evolution is a fact. It has been documented for centuries. Just because you cannot get the basic concepts of fact, theory, hypothesis and a host of other scientific terms worked out has no bearing on other people that can.

According to the definition, theories are also not always right, and can sometimes be proven wrong, as would be the case in evolution. There is simply no proof to hold evolution together.

There is the fact of evolution and the theories to explain that fact. So far modern evolution theories are quite robust in explaining how the fact of evolution occurred.

Speciation has only been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria and some insects. The bottom line is there isn't even proof that these options are available in all life. Then when those changes do happen, like in bacteria or viruses, you still end up with the same germ, its just a different strain, which is also proof that evolution is assuming a new species has emerged. Totally false.

Begin by learning a little about biology. Take a basic course and learn why you are not making any sense at all.

There is no proof in biology that a species can change into another species, there is no proof that I share a common ancestor with apes. Dream on.

Actually there is. It comes from studies of fossils and genetics and molecular chemistry and physiology and anatomy and a host of other sciences.

Your example of speciation is not acceptable as it doesn't prove that a species CAN change into another species. Like I stated earlier just because humans might come out one say with naturally green hair doesn't mean they are any less human of a species. So you see it is possible to have changes without a species changing species.

Just because you do not read the links does not mean they were not posted. Your guesses as to what was posted are meaningless.

Aside from the fact that we share a lot of DNA with many other creatures, there is no proof to this. /quote]
It does not stop at DNA.

Your talking about a term used in biblical times, I doubt very seriously if wiki isn't going to have something accurate on it.

Irrelevant commentary.

reply to post by itsthetooth

My question: Given that ALL life is not from here, why do animals not suffer the same or need the medical intervention throughout their lives you claim man does. You have not answered this so no wonder I have to keep asking the same questions. Please answer

Because we are a GMO.

So you won’t answer. Your bible says the same god that made man made all life. So we are all GMO and the question remains unanswered:

Given that ALL life is not from here, why do animals not suffer the same or need the medical intervention throughout their lives you claim man does.

Animals were transported here just as humans were. Your bible claims they are made by the same god. These animals are just as alien to this planet as any human according to you and your bible so again your answer fails.

There is no proof that humans or animals were made by the creator that transported us here. In fact there is much evidence on the contrary, which is why it appears more that we were all abducted from other planets.

So you are now saying that the bible is not a clear historical document? Still that changes nothing. ALL organic life was transported to this planet. Nothing is natural to this planet. Target food cannot exist. Your rules not mine.

Sure they are alien to the planet, but depending on how much of their enviroment got brought here along with them could explain an ability to fit in, in some cases.

Sorry but your answer just proves my point. All life is alien to this planet. No life is here by natural means. Your often stated golden rule. If it is not natural then it cannot be called target food.

Well now your going along with Pye's idea of intervention, but I have to tell you that I always assumed that the high amount of defects we have in our genes are from punishments handed down from god.

That has nothing to do with target food. Stay focused. You are losing badly.

He did make it clear that the punishments would be handed down to our offspring, and what a better way to do it.

Err hello. Target food, remember.

However if you want to believe in the theory for the moment that we were perhaps created, then there is no way that it would have been by the same guy.

The historical document says you are wrong and again this has no bearing on target food.

To sum up. The bible tells us all life was transported to this planet. No life here is natural and so target food does not exist anywhere but in your head as your fantasy.

Your assuming that any and all food for any species was intentionally left behind, and I never said that.

Nope. Never made that assumption. Do you not read anything presented to you? It does not matter what was brought here or even what was left behind. The processes of geo engineering this planet and transporting alien life to it means nothing can be considered natural by your own rules and criteria.

The only reason OUR food was left behind is because god claimed that nothing brought here was from our home, in other words none of the food we eat is our intended food.

Has no bearing on this argument. Nothing on this planet can be considered natural by your rules and criteria. Target food cannot exist, your rules say so.

Then if you want to make assumptions about target food and animals, you have to weight in extinctions too.

Already explained why that has no bearing on target food. Anything that has become extinct was not natural anyhow so alters nothing. Your rules and criteria say target food cannot exist.

Because first of all they are not GMO's, Secondly, I never said they don't have target food, but I'm in fact on the fence about their food.

It does not matter whether they are GMO's or not. Your rules and criteria backed up by your bible shows ALL organic life on this planet is not natural due to the actions of the aliens. Target food does not exist.

You forgot to answer this again and tried to merge two seperate post to hide the fact

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.

If the bible is a "supernatural" read, then by definition it can't be proven, and therefor can't be used as a source.

reply to post by Barcs
True but tooth's revelation that no organic life is native to this planet and his insistence that the bible confirms this, using tooth’s rules for target food actually without doubt proves target food fantasy to be just that.

He has also claimed that a disaster destroyed ALL life on this planet with the exception of maybe bacteria which he claims is also backed up by the bible.

This means the planet had to be prepared for the arrival of organic life (geo engineered) by aliens so no part of this planet can be considered using his criteria as natural. No more natural than a farm and he has made clear he considers farms not to be natural.

The life forms were transported here by means that also cannot be considered, according to tooth natural yet his golden rule for target food is it must be available by natural means only for it to be considered target food.

His argument in support of target food fails by his own rules. His so called target food is no more natural than any other farmed product.

He said he wanted someone to disprove target, and he has.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Obviously not because we are here.

Mutation is an enviromental condition and part of Natural Selection.

Also...a VIRUS is not alive. A Virus has DNA but is a set down from a Life Form and shows us an evolutionary state of development that is consistent with the Quantum Evolution concept or GENESIS.

Anyone here can spend about a $100 on a cheap microscope and some slides and a bottle of bleach and within several hours be able to visually see both forced Chemical Mutation and Evolution by Survival of the Fittest by adding bleach to slides of Bacteria and then taking the bacteria that survived each subsequent exposure to bleach on new slides of grown bacteria of each events living bacteria and adding sugar water to regrow each new generation.....the more time one exposes each stronger and resistent to bleach generation of Bacteria...the less that such bacteria die...mutation can be seen caused by the chemical exposure of the bacteria to the bleach...and finally...if one spent enough time...a whole new strain of Bleach Immune Bacteria would be grown.

Since one of my Families Businesses is in Heath Care and the fact that not only do I help run it but am also familiar with various drugs, antibiotics designed to help kill bacteria that have become immune to standard antibiotics and Gene Therapy which although in it's infancy will eventually be the cure from anything from Cancer to AIDS.

We are right now designing Retroviruses that we force into an evolutionary state to get what we need. For ANYONE to be so ignorant as to keep saying or believing that EVOLUTION does not exist....is akin to thinking the SUN revolves around the EARTH.

Split Infinity

reply to post by colin42

I have never combined two separate posts. I may have had to post two replies to your drivel and that is different.

No I think you have brought some of the work from other posts here with you.

And your dishonesty continues.

Which only shows you that you don't understand the term dishonesty. How can I ask a question and that be dishonest.

tooth. When will you ever give an honest reply? You claim the bible is a clear historical document. You claim the bible, your historical document tells us we are not from here.

Yes for the sixth time, what does that have to do with anything.

It does not matter what is assumed. This is about what you claim and you claim no organic life is from here and you are supported by the bible.

True, but thats not what most people believe, why Id even bet you dont believe it.

I don’t have to. I have shown using you rules, your criteria that target food cannot exist. So you need to address that.

I never said target food cant exist, how dishonest can you be. The only thing the bible states is that OUR food and things from OUR home were not brought here, the rest is only from observation.

You fail again. You have claimed many times that if any processes are involved then those actions and food cannot be regarded as natural. Your rules.

Thats only because you are assuming humans are from earth and you wrong.

I am not arguing about whether we are from here or not. I asked you:

'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 defined by your own often stated criteria?

And AGAIN you have not answered me.

And I answered you allready because we yeild to other life on this planet and assume they are from here just like us.

Nope. According to you ANYTHING that involves a process can not be considered natural.

That depends on whether or not that process itself is natural, which takes some thought.

You claim all organic life was brought to a devastated planet. That means earth had to be geo engineered with machines. Organic life collected, transported and placed on earth by machines.

By your own rules and criteria nothing on this planet can be considered natural. So using your rules it is not hard to say. Your target food cannot exist.

And again it all depends on whether or not their enviroment was brought here with them.

Nope. Does not matter if food was 'intended' for them or not. That food due to the actions of the aliens can no longer be considered natural. It cannot be called target food.

Depends on how you want to look at it. Yes nothing will ever be native to earth, but thats not to say that some of their enviroment could have come here with them, making it just as much home to them. The food determins target food not the enviroment.

This has no bearing on the issue. Whatever has become extinct was not natural anyway by your rules and criteria.

It does if their target food has gone extinct.

Nope. You have claimed over many pages. Target food must have grown 'naturally' with no processes. In the case of this planet according to you and the bible, nothing is from here. Nothing is here without processes involving machinery and tools. Nothing is natural and target food cannot exist.

Target food doesnt necessarily have to have the same enviroment to grow, thats a long shot for you to assume that.

Most things grow from out of the ground in case you missed that.

Ignoring the fact that you cannot explain what instinct is any food the animal finds, that food is the result of processes that are not natural. Target food does not exist.

It's scarce but I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.

Nope you claimed that this is because animals have target food and we dont. I have already shown that they have not. Your rules and your criteria. No processes allowed.

You also claimed only humans were not from here but we know now that was another lie.

Well humans surly don't have target food, so ya that just leaves animals and even that is scarce.

reply to post by stereologist

Now all you have to learn is how an hypothesis fits into science.

I allready know how, its the guess work of the parts that can't be proven.

hese statements do not follow from the fact that a hypothesis has been formulated. Evolution is a fact. It has been documented for centuries. Just because you cannot get the basic concepts of fact, theory, hypothesis and a host of other scientific terms worked out has no bearing on other people that can.

Evolution is nothing more that a bunch of meandering theories that are filled with hypothesis everywhere.

No one has ever proven to me how I share a common ancestor with apes, so I don't understand how you can assume its a fact. It might be an over documentated theory that is preached and worshiped by those that have to much time on their hands and willing to believe anything, intervention is not this way. Everything in intervention is redundantly backed up.

There is the fact of evolution and the theories to explain that fact. So far modern evolution theories are quite robust in explaining how the fact of evolution occurred.

But still no one can show me a fact that proves we have apes as a common ancestor.

Begin by learning a little about biology. Take a basic course and learn why you are not making any sense at all.

This came from wiki speciation, so I guess they don't know either.

Actually there is. It comes from studies of fossils and genetics and molecular chemistry and physiology and anatomy and a host of other sciences.

Sure if you assume that coincidence proves relation.

Just because you do not read the links does not mean they were not posted. Your guesses as to what was posted are meaningless.

How do you think I could be arguing about them without reading them.