Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Science against evolution

page: 25
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


LOL, your funny, trying to dumb people down more.

There is no proof of evolution. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.
There is no proof that a species can even change into another species.
Intelligent design explains overlap just as much as evolution does.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Seriously...trying to reflect yourself. I know you are but what am I...What ever you say bounces of me and sticks on you!
I don't know how many users are on the tooth account but one or two have the maturity of a six year old.

FYI I was posting for the readers, not trolling for your over the top ignorance.
Well if I was wrong, someone, anyone would be pulling out that proof that shows a speceis can evolve into another species, but I don't see any.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





There you proved me right - you don't know what an hypothesis means.
Nope, according to the definition, your wrong.


hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun
1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.



Synonyms
supposition - assumption - conjecture - presumption



Hypothesis definition




There you confirm that you do not understand the basic terms of science.
Just because your incredulous doesn't make you correct.




You don't know the terms and now the problem is that you admit you don't understand. We all know that to be the case.
I understand the basics, and thats enough. Just with what I understand there are far to many reasons that evolution can't be possible.




Take a basic biology course and learn.
There is to much assumption in the theory of evolution.




No such assumptions are made. Take a basic biology course and learn.
A basic biology course just teaches that there is proof in relation through our DNA but thats not proof.




You end with a joke. How nice.
Target Food is a good example. There is no way that species could be expected to just eat what ever is available rather than food that is intended for them. It goes against the grain of productivity.




Please substantiated any of these silly claims.
I just did.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Actually TF is based on nothing. Some people might even see it as based on a broad ignorance of reality. They might even see it as a ridiculous hoax. I say it is based on nothing - an unsubstantiated hoax.
You keep saying that but I don't see you resolving anything with some real answers like target food does.

Evolution failed to explain why all species choose the same food, target food does.
Evolution failed to explain why there is no experimental stage, target food does.
Evolution failed to explain the order of choice in food, target food does.
Evolution failed to explain how it is that species have a driven instinct to a specific food, target food does.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Ridiculous.
Then you need to pick up a history book, even the bible would be a good one.
It will show you that whenever aliens are around, abduction is usually not to far off.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





There is zero evidence for intelligent design.
You really need to take a basic course in biology.
You really need to take a course in history.

I'm sorry to say that the possibility of intelligent design way outweighs the chance of evolution. Not that there is even a chance.




There is zero proof that a creator exists or is even needed to explain anything about the world we see. That claim is a cop out for those that are unable or unwilling to learn.
How can you ask me to have faith in your biology book when you just excuse the bible without reason.




TF does not exist. This claim is meaningless because TF is shown to be false.
So then put your money where your mouth is and answer the last four statements I gave you and how evolution picked them up.




You lied about many things including animal diets from abalone to squirrels to deer.
How could I lie about something that I'm not the author of? I never lied about any diets.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by theophilus40
 


I mean, it's not like Amino Acids have flagelli, release spores, build underground colonies, bear fruit, lay eggs in nests, drive cars, shed their skin, go through a larval stage, collect nuts for the winter, do death spirals when they catch a wildebeast, open oysters with rocks while floating on their backs, chuck atl-atls at panthers, have leaves that turn reddish-orange in autumn or outsource manufacturing to China.

Amino acids are complex and all those creatures alluded to above do have amino acids, but it's not like anyone is arguing that the primordial ooze congealed into the garden of Eden or the perfect vision of a Disney woodland fairy tale scene.

Seriously people, I'm still open to God, the creator, and his/her/its/(insert possessive pronoun) role in the formation of the system of things, but omnipotence does not preclude "how".



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Not if you follow your own rules. Producing target food there must be no extra processes. No artificial processes. No tools or machinery. Everything must fit your version of natural.
This was only a definition to help people identify whats natural and whats not.




One rule I will not allow you to apply is the one that says you can change anything you have previously labelled fact to suit your current lie.

You claim man is not from here. Everything he does is not natural because of that. Now you have finally admitted no life is from here then no organic life is natural. Target food does not exist. Your rules forbid it.
That depends on whether or not the target food was brought here as well. The relationship is between the consumer and the food, not the food and the planet.




4. The golden rule to apply when considering if something can be target food is everything must be natural, no tools and no machinery. No artificial processes
Those were only steps to help you identify whats natural and whats not.




Apply any of those above to your target food golden rule and it fails every restriction. Target food does not exist
To the planet, but its not the planet that eats the food.




Seaweed, kelp the abalone everything is alien to this artificially constructed world. Apply your rules and if you have any shred of honesty you cannot classify anything as target food. By your rules it does not exist
If a species and its food are together, then the species has its target food.




No life is from here. Anything they do cannot be considered natural. There is no such thing as target food.
Target food can exist in an alien world just as much as we do.




So your bible tells you they need lots of help but not how they transported it. You’re too frightened to answer as it can only be by machines.
No I totally agree, they must have gotten here by machine. But still you can have target food here just like you can have other alien species here.




You don’t know what exists on other planets. What we do know is that it cannot exist on earth. Your rules say so.
There is a difference between it not being supposed to and actually being so.

Target food will never be ruled out untill the four examples I gave are answered by how evolution could be responsible for them.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Or illness is just part of life which is what we see. Perhaps you could consider that things are not pre determined and not supposed to be. Just a thought
Illness to the depth that we see, is not natural.




That’s a problem you need to face. Target food is not the answer as it does not exist. Your criteria and rules show this clearly.
Then explain the four questions.




That does not explain how your understanding of the fundamental premise the bible is based on could be so wrong. Address that.
Who says it has to be wrong.




So the bibles number one story is not accurate? How can you claim the bible is a clear historical document when the story at its foundation is, according to you NOT an accurate understanding?
Just because most aren't reading it correctly doesn't mean its inaccurate.




So you now claim the bible is far from a clear historical document? Put the other tooth on as you make even less sense than the other one.
For the most part, its clear to me.




But Adam and Eve is part of the story you now claim as inaccurate. You make it sound like they never really existed so the tripe above is meaningless. BTW according to your bible Adam and Eve were not born or is that wrong as well?

Cant wait to see how you answer my post and the dilemma you face
I think its very accurate, its your interpratation that is off.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Why the video by Lloyd Pye on human genetics, it explains it all.
Another poor attempt to deflect the subject FAILS


You are correct, I thought you were putting words in my mouth like you do from time to time.
I know I am correct and I accept your apology


No, only humans are GMO's because of what was found in our DNA that isn't found in other life, again shame on you for not watching the video.
Nope. Going by what you called fact. The creator made the diversity we see today with recycled parts. All living things are designed. All living things are programmed. That’s GMO. Your words and your facts often repeated.


Now I see where your getting confused. There are two types of creators, there is the grand master creator that probably made all this life, then there is the imposter like the one that claims he made us from dirt. However the imposter did have mad DNA skills but he left his sloppy traces of his work in our very own DNA.
Are you for real? Do you really want an answer to that twaddle?

Still the bible being a clear historical document looks to be failing as the 'imposter' that made things from dirt I take is the god the bible claims as the one God.



This planet according to you must have been geo engineered so no part of this planet formed naturally. It was altered by the machines of your aliens so by your rules is no longer a natural planet.

And obviously a poor job was done which is why we are headed for the 6th largest mass extinction.

Then you accept the planet is not natural so nothing on it can be natural.
I was not asking you I was confirming your answer


In contrast to the planet, no, but you have to remember that enviroments could have been brought here as well.
This answer is garbled and does not answer my original point. So what is it, another lie to fit your new story?


Just because aliens brought plants here doesn't mean they can't grow naturally in the ground.
I see another tooth is posting and you need this dance repeated all over again. How did the aliens bring them here? What planted the seeds in the artificially produced soil?


Thanks for agreeing. Machines were involved in forming this planet. Machines were involved in populating this planet with life. No life here is natural and by your rules target food does not exist.

That depends on whether or not their food was brought here with them. They eat the food not the planet.
Nope. You have claimed many times transporting is not natural and the food cannot be natural. That tooth2 means it cannot be target food.


Humans planting plants for food is not a natural process, but the process can yeild natural food.
Oh you chose that option. So for a year now you have been lying about this to many posters that spent page after page explaining and showing you examples of natural food produced by man and page after page of you denying it and claiming anything man grew was not natural coupled with your usual off hand, one line dismissal.

Lets have a brief summery

1. You dishonestly maintained that the bible claimed only man was not from this planet which meant any actions man did was not natural. A year later you admit you knew the bible claimed all organic life does not come from here except maybe bacteria.
2. You dishonestly claimed and maintained that any food man grew was not and could never be natural. A year later and you suddenly change your mind and now say the processes are not natural but natural food will be produced.
3. You dishonestly claimed and maintained the bible is a clear historical document. Denied anything that showed you that you were wrong and now you tear apart the stories in the bible, claim the bibles god is an imposter
4. That the rules around natural can all be changed by you
5. The golden rule of target food becomes invalid if aliens are involved.
6. Oh and how can I forget? You continue to merge separate posts even though you have been asked not to and had explained to you that it is dishonest

So what has changed lately that has brought about this epic turn around? Certainly not your dishonesty

Oh I have challenged target food using your rules. Rules that when applied using your claims show target food cannot exist.


edit on 30-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It does not matter. Each life form would not be natural. Crops are not the only things that grow or are food you know. You even say organic life was transported here from many places. How natural is that?

The process of transporting is not natural.
Quite. So no organic life on this planet is natural and target food cannot exist


Of course Target food can exist, the relationship is between the food and the consumer not the planet and the consumer.
Nope. Your golden rule. There can be no processes involved in target food. Preparing an artifical planet for organic life transported from another planet cannot be considered natural. Target food cannot exist


Wrong again, the original creator would not place defects in our genes and do sloppy work to the point that we would be able to be identified as a GMO.
And you got this drivel from where?


You have already agreed that the environment is artificial. It cannot have a natural element. What you have not done is explain how a species that is not natural use natural means to do things.

Of course it can, lets say that all dirt was brought here, in that case thats an element.
Let me quote you


The process of transporting is not natural.
Fails the golden rule by your own words.


You cannot explain what instinct means. I have already shown you that ants learn to farm and shown they use pesticides on their crops.

Really, who taught them?
Evidence already supplied. Go back and read it this time then report back.


Explain instinctive if you are going to insist on using it as so far you have used it incorrectly every time. The rest of your drivel has been debunked many times go back and read what you denied then
You supplied a definition with no link. But hey who cares I asked you to explain as I want to know you understand what instinct is not see you post another unsupported text.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Not if you follow your own rules. Producing target food there must be no extra processes. No artificial processes. No tools or machinery. Everything must fit your version of natural.

This was only a definition to help people identify whats natural and whats not.
Yep and I must thank you for it as without it I could not have proved target food wrong. So the credit must go to you. The man that destroyed the myth.


That depends on whether or not the target food was brought here as well. The relationship is between the consumer and the food, not the food and the planet.
I already answered this so the repeat game you claim to be my dishonest tactic is shown to be undoubtedly your dishonest tactic

Still. Nope apply the golden rule. The planet is not natural and all life upon it not natural. Target food cannot exist


4. The golden rule to apply when considering if something can be target food is everything must be natural, no tools and no machinery. No artificial processes

Those were only steps to help you identify whats natural and whats not.
And they did. I have found when you apply them to your claims target food cannot exist.


Apply any of those above to your target food golden rule and it fails every restriction. Target food does not exist

To the planet, but its not the planet that eats the food.
The artificial planet is where the organic life that is not natural grows. Organic life is both food and consumer. The golden rule say's no. Target food cannot exist.


If a species and its food are together, then the species has its target food.
Again??? (are you a different tooth?) Food as you put it is both food and consumer of food. No organic life is natural on this artificial planet. Target food cannot exist. The golden rule applies.


Target food can exist in an alien world just as much as we do.
Apply the golden rule and you will see it cannot.


No I totally agree, they must have gotten here by machine. But still you can have target food here just like you can have other alien species here.
You wrote


The process of transporting is not natural.
Now apply the golden rule. Target food does not exist


You don’t know what exists on other planets. What we do know is that it cannot exist on earth. Your rules say so.

There is a difference between it not being supposed to and actually being so.
and that addresses the above how?


Target food will never be ruled out untill the four examples I gave are answered by how evolution could be responsible for them.
Target food has been ruled out many times using your rules against your claims and it is not up to evolution to provide answers to a fantasy.


edit on 30-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Illness to the depth that we see, is not natural.
And you base that on?


Then explain the four questions.
I explained that when you apply the golden rule against your claims target food fails. I don’t give diddly about 4 questions.


That does not explain how your understanding of the fundamental premise the bible is based on could be so wrong. Address that.

Who says it has to be wrong.
The bible and all that follow it.


So the bibles number one story is not accurate? How can you claim the bible is a clear historical document when the story at its foundation is, according to you NOT an accurate understanding?

Just because most aren't reading it correctly doesn't mean its inaccurate.
Fair enough another subject I don’t give diddly about but let’s get one thing straight. There are many scholars that study the bible that would laugh in your face. Tell me when did you learn to read ancient Hebrew?


So you now claim the bible is far from a clear historical document? Put the other tooth on as you make even less sense than the other one.

For the most part, its clear to me.
You have demonstrated nothing is clear to you. As far as the bible goes I could care less but you have demonstrated such a high level of dishonesty and willingness to lie to protect your stories there is nothing you can say that would make me believe you are telling the truth.


I think its very accurate, its your interpratation that is off.
Let me remind you it is you that says that the adam and eve story is wrong, not me.


The only way that Adam and Eve could have had a prior memory of being embarrased, is if they actually had a prior memory, which is an obvious clue that this was NOT their birth.
So you don’t think it is very accurate. My only comment on the subject was I thought adam and eve were not born. I’m sure your bible says they were created which indicates you dont have a clue.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Another poor attempt to deflect the subject FAILS
This is why you never learn anything, you think that I'm always trying to deflect a subject. Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong in your assumptions? This is also why you ask the same question 20 times, you just can't believe the answer.




I know I am correct and I accept your apology
I never said I was sorry.

I said you were correct in your ill formed assumption for once.




Nope. Going by what you called fact. The creator made the diversity we see today with recycled parts. All living things are designed. All living things are programmed. That’s GMO. Your words and your facts often repeated.
Not from an original creator. The M wouldn't mean modified if it was an original creation.




Are you for real? Do you really want an answer to that twaddle?

Still the bible being a clear historical document looks to be failing as the 'imposter' that made things from dirt I take is the god the bible claims as the one God.
Can you show what you base your assumption on.




This answer is garbled and does not answer my original point. So what is it, another lie to fit your new story?
Maybe its because we are back once again to answering your points rather than answering questions. Of course it answers your point, you just may not be wise enough to understand it.




I see another tooth is posting and you need this dance repeated all over again. How did the aliens bring them here? What planted the seeds in the artificially produced soil?
I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.




Nope. You have claimed many times transporting is not natural and the food cannot be natural. That tooth2 means it cannot be target food.
I'm not going to play the repeat game.




Oh you chose that option. So for a year now you have been lying about this to many posters that spent page after page explaining and showing you examples of natural food produced by man and page after page of you denying it and claiming anything man grew was not natural coupled with your usual off hand, one line dismissal.
Nope the planting of food is still unnatural, as it involves man, or alien in all cases. Thats not to say that after that, the food could be considered natural.




1. You dishonestly maintained that the bible claimed only man was not from this planet which meant any actions man did was not natural.
No what I claimed was by the very definition of the term natural, any involvment with man was not natural.

Man can still plant, feed, and harvest natural crops, however the processes used are not natural because they involve man.




A year later you admit you knew the bible claimed all organic life does not come from here except maybe bacteria.
2. You dishonestly claimed and maintained that any food man grew was not and could never be natural.
In its process, that is correct. I have never seen a pizza grow wild in the jungle.




A year later and you suddenly change your mind and now say the processes are not natural but natural food will be produced.
This can also depend on the technical aspects involved with what man had to do in the process.




3. You dishonestly claimed and maintained the bible is a clear historical document. Denied anything that showed you that you were wrong and now you tear apart the stories in the bible, claim the bibles god is an imposter
Clearly.




4. That the rules around natural can all be changed by you
It's real simple, go to google and type in "natural definition" and you will get the standard definition. I'm not definition posting for you anylonger, your a big boy now.




5. The golden rule of target food becomes invalid if aliens are involved. Certainly not your dishonesty
No it doesn't, and this is the last time I'm playing the repeat game with you, the relationship is between the consumer and the food not the consumer and the planet.




6. Oh and how can I forget? You continue to merge separate posts even though you have been asked not to and had explained to you that it is dishonest

So what has changed lately that has brought about this epic turn around?

Oh I have challenged target food using your rules. Rules that when applied using your claims show target food cannot exist.
Challange away, and good luck to you, your going to need it.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Quite. So no organic life on this planet is natural and target food cannot exist
I'm not playing the repeat game with you, your going to have to view back for answers now.




Nope. Your golden rule. There can be no processes involved in target food. Preparing an artifical planet for organic life transported from another planet cannot be considered natural. Target food cannot exist
I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.




And you got this drivel from where?
Because when there is a comparison done between all the other life on this planet, they don't have the changes we do.




You supplied a definition with no link. But hey who cares I asked you to explain as I want to know you understand what instinct is not see you post another unsupported text.
The link I posted was good, so just because it doesn't work on YOUR computer, or you live with some outdated browser is not my fault.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



This is why you never learn anything, you think that I'm always trying to deflect a subject. Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong in your assumptions? This is also why you ask the same question 20 times, you just can't believe the answer.
No I always expect you to lie and I am never disappointed, you always do. An attempt to deflect it was just as this is. Ignored


I know I am correct and I accept your apology

I never said I was sorry.
Thought so but I gave you the benefit of doubt that you would do the right thing when you were caught out in a bold faced lie


I said you were correct in your ill formed assumption for once.
The quote I gave you showed it was far from an ill formed assumption. It was indeed exactly what I said it was. Another of your blatant lies.


Not from an original creator. The M wouldn't mean modified if it was an original creation.
You would not have parts to recycle if you didn’t have something to take them from.


Can you show what you base your assumption on.
Your posts.


I see another tooth is posting and you need this dance repeated all over again. How did the aliens bring them here? What planted the seeds in the artificially produced soil?

I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.
Fair enough. I have shown target food cannot exist enough times.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No I always expect you to lie and I am never disappointed, you always do. An attempt to deflect it was just as this is. Ignored
I haven't had any reason to lie, the understanding of intervention is a hell of a lot more solid than evolution.




Thought so but I gave you the benefit of doubt that you would do the right thing when you were caught out in a bold faced lie
There is nothing to be sorry for. Your just not happy with things not fitting within the constraints of evolution so your not not happy with the answer.



The quote I gave you showed it was far from an ill formed assumption. It was indeed exactly what I said it was. Another of your blatant lies.
Your assumptions do not usually yeild postive results.




You would not have parts to recycle if you didn’t have something to take them from.
Being able to make new life from the idea of existing life does not necessarly need recycled, parts, that was just an example to help you understnad.




Your posts.
Then you obviously missed an important part.




Fair enough. I have shown target food cannot exist enough times.
I'll bet if you keep telling yourself that, you will eventually convince yourself to believe it, just like how you talked yourself into believing about evolution, cause everyone knows it sure wasn't from science that made you believe.. Telling yourself Target Food doesn't exist doesn't will it out of existence. It's allready been observed, and allready been proven by several factors, so your to late.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



LOL, your funny, trying to dumb people down more.

There is no proof of evolution. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.
There is no proof that a species can even change into another species.
Intelligent design explains overlap just as much as evolution does.

ID explains nothing. It is just the failed creationist claims with a new name pinned to it.

Evolution does have proof. Evolution is a fact. The fossil record clearly shows us that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is documented and that proof has been posted in this thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well if I was wrong, someone, anyone would be pulling out that proof that shows a speceis can evolve into another species, but I don't see any. /quote]
Already posted.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join