Science against evolution

page: 26
12
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Nope, according to the definition, your wrong.

False. You need to take a course when you get to high school and learn for a change.


Just because your incredulous doesn't make you correct.

Straw man argument. Posting a definition does not mean you understand what you post. Your posts tell all that you do not understand the meaning of the word,


I understand the basics, and thats enough. Just with what I understand there are far to many reasons that evolution can't be possible.

Your posts reveal that you do not understand even the meaning of the term evolution.


There is to much assumption in the theory of evolution.

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


A basic biology course just teaches that there is proof in relation through our DNA but thats not proof.

When you get to high school take a course and learn where you are mistaken.


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.

TF is an unsubstantiated fantasy with a tooth as a sole adherent. There is no intended food.
edit on 30-1-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





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.
Can you please explain to me how fossil record proves evolution.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.

TF is an unsubstantiated fantasy proven wrong many times.

1. False. Species do not choose the same food
2. False. Animals experiment with food
3. False. There is no order of choice
4. False. There is no driven instinct

All of these have been shown to be false claims.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.

The bible is full of fiction. Can't be trusted as an historical record. Genesis, exodus, and the flood are typical fiction.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Nope, according to the definition, your wrong. /quote]
False. You need to take a course when you get to high school and learn for a change
No high school course proves to us that a species can evolve into another species.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


There is more...

Not only can we witness evolution we can control it's predictability to create artificial enzymes by using directed evolution in the laboratory.


University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube

www1.umn.edu...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.

ID is nothing more than the failed claims of creationists with a new name. No evidence to support ID.


How can you ask me to have faith in your biology book when you just excuse the bible without reason.

The bible is fiction. I've provided a large number of reasons:
1. geological evidence - no global flood
2. fossil evidence - the order of creation in the bible is wrong in both genesis myths
3. archaeological evidence - exodus never happened


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 posted 4 lies. All have been shown to be wrong.


How could I lie about something that I'm not the author of? I never lied about any diets.

You lied through omission, and through misrepresentation.

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



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





TF is an unsubstantiated fantasy proven wrong many times.
Well is it unsubstantiated or is it proven wrong many times? Which is it?




1. False. Species do not choose the same food
And that would be false. According to ANY diet that you look up, we know to consice degree that all species within a species eat the same food, enviroment and selection permitting of course.




2. False. Animals experiment with food
False again, I'm not able to find a single diet that explains the experimental phase, but you would seem to be claiming that it always happens. Well where is it?




3. False. There is no order of choice
False again, as proven by the diet from the squirrel as an example, there is a clear order in his selection.




4. False. There is no driven instinct
After hitting the trifecta of false, you hit a fourth. There is no other explanation for the order of these events, and evolution failed to explain them as well.

You can look up any diets and see this order for yourself.



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



Can you please explain to me how fossil record proves evolution.

At one time there were no mammals. Now there are. The transition from reptile to mammal is so well established with so many intermediate forms known that it is impossible to declare where mammals started. The fossil record clearly shows the transition from reptile to mammal.

The fossil record also shows in great detail the development of new species of trilobites, mollusks, brachiopods, and other creatures.

Once there was were no fish and then slowly there were 4 different types of fish of which 2 exist today.

The fossil record supports evolution.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No high school course proves to us that a species can evolve into another species.

When you get to high school maybe you'll change your mind.

The issue is really that you take a basic course in biology so that you don't make so many bumbling mistakes that make your posts garbled. For example, you don't understand what evolution means. Your posts make that clear. You also do not understand where an hypothesis fits into the scientific method. Your posts make that clear.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 



There is more...

Not only can we witness evolution we can control it's predictability to create artificial enzymes by using directed evolution in the laboratory.


University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube

I really appreciate reading that article. Thanks for posting the link.


I recommend everyone check out the article it is well written.
edit on 30-1-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well is it unsubstantiated or is it proven wrong many times? Which is it?

Duhhh! It's both. You have not substantiated any of the wacko claims you have made while your claims are being shown to be wrong.


And that would be false. According to ANY diet that you look up, we know to consice degree that all species within a species eat the same food, enviroment and selection permitting of course.

That would be false as already pointed out.


False again, I'm not able to find a single diet that explains the experimental phase, but you would seem to be claiming that it always happens. Well where is it?

Evidence already posted in this thread.


False again, as proven by the diet from the squirrel as an example, there is a clear order in his selection.

False. No evidence provided. Grazers and browsers where I live exhibit no order in their selection.


After hitting the trifecta of false, you hit a fourth. There is no other explanation for the order of these events, and evolution failed to explain them as well.

You can look up any diets and see this order for yourself.

False. Evidence already posted in this thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by flyingfish
 



There is more...

Not only can we witness evolution we can control it's predictability to create artificial enzymes by using directed evolution in the laboratory.


University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube

I really appreciate reading that article. Thanks for posting the link.


I recommend everyone check out the article it is well written.
edit on 30-1-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)


Your welcome.
I like the part were Veglia says "It’s kind of like giving typewriters to monkeys," he says. "One monkey and one typewriter won’t produce anything clever. But if you have enough monkeys and typewriters, eventually one of them will write ’to be or not to be’."

Using this example there is hope tooth will eventually write something coherent.
edit on 30-1-2013 by flyingfish because: doh!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





At one time there were no mammals. Now there are. The transition from reptile to mammal is so well established with so many intermediate forms known that it is impossible to declare where mammals started. The fossil record clearly shows the transition from reptile to mammal.
So what you are saying is there is a plethora of mammals transitioning to reptiles that it just has to be that evolution occured?
Your guessing. Thats not fact and its sure in the hell isn't science. Science would take something from each of them to prove there was evolution. Can you explain how it is that you have all the DNA, you have plenty of fossils, you have plenty of overlapping species, and you still can prove we are all related. Your assumption is based on the fact that we do have some similaritys, but that don't mean JACK.
You have built a religion on faith, you believe this to be the path for diversity but yet its never been confirmed or witnessed. What a joke, where is the punch line?




The fossil record also shows in great detail the development of new species of trilobites, mollusks, brachiopods, and other creatures.
New, or new found? I doubt very seriously if new species have emerged from them, thats a crock. Your assuming based on some subtle differences. Like I have the example earlier, if humans started to come out with natural green hair, is that a new species? Not necessarily, it certainly is just a human with green hair. Sure defects are always possible but there is no way in hell that the life on this planet was constructed entirely from defects.




Once there was were no fish and then slowly there were 4 different types of fish of which 2 exist today.

The fossil record supports evolution.
Of couse it could never be that they were brought here which is what I have been telling you all along.

You assume an awful lot, maybe you should look more into backing your fantasy up, you will either realize you are wrong, or ignore the facts. With intervention, the deeper I look into it, the more the facts say we were all placed here. There are to many things that all support the idea. Not to mention Pye, Sitchen, Von daniken and the bible.

So tell me, is everyone else wrong, and your right?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





When you get to high school maybe you'll change your mind.

The issue is really that you take a basic course in biology so that you don't make so many bumbling mistakes that make your posts garbled. For example, you don't understand what evolution means. Your posts make that clear. You also do not understand where an hypothesis fits into the scientific method. Your posts make that clear.
You need to take a basic course in history, your just about 7000 years behind the times.

I allready posted the definition for the term hypothesis, there is nothing to get wrong about it. It's written in as part of the structure of evolution and that is all I need to know. As far as I'm concearned it tells me right off the bat there are parts of evoluton that are guessed, and that is per the definition, so you can try to mud sling all you want your arguing with the definition. Are you like colin, do you have your own understanding of these words and refuse to agree with whats allready written about them?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Duhhh! It's both. You have not substantiated any of the wacko claims you have made while your claims are being shown to be wrong.
Not a single person has presented credible evidence that Target Food is false, I'm yearning for the moment trust me.




That would be false as already pointed out
Maybe thats the problem, your pointing things out, and I'm looking for them to be disproven.




Evidence already posted in this thread.
Then prove it, no one has EVER posted a diet, let alone many diets that show an experimental stage outside of starvation. Put your money where you mouth is and prove it.




False. No evidence provided. Grazers and browsers where I live exhibit no order in their selection.
True, not in a phase of hunger they wont, but they are in search of Target Food in this process. Those are probably Herbivores, so there is your order right there. They never step out of the box and eat meat do they? and if they do is it because they are starving?




False. Evidence already posted in this thread.
You never posted anything credible, post something that doesn't suck and I'll take a look at it.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
It appears you were even lying about your refusal to play the repeat game that you are the conductor of. Yet another lie from you to avoid answering questions you cannot


Not a single person has presented credible evidence that Target Food is false, I'm yearning for the moment trust me.
Everyone has including you. As for trusting you, a confirmed liar. I don’t think so

Your lies that you maintained that includes::

1. claiming man is the only animal that does not come from here making everything he does not natural when you have now claimed to have known all along that you actually believe no life originated on this planet
2. In desperation to save your discredited fantasy you now claim food can be grown using processes that are not natural but the resulting food will be natural. Something else you have denied for over a year

You have never explained why you maintained these lies for a year and those two above alone should make you ashamed to show your face on this forum let alone accuse others of dishonesty.


Maybe thats the problem, your pointing things out, and I'm looking for them to be disproven.
You have had your fantasy disproven many times but you are far too dishonest to admit it. You prefer your lies


You never posted anything credible, post something that doesn't suck and I'll take a look at it.
Golden Rule supplied by tooth: The golden rule. There can be no artificial processes or processes that are not natural for food to be target food including the use of machines and tools.

Evidence #1 supplied by tooth: No organic life apart from maybe bacteria is from here and so all organic life cannot be considered natural. Source the bible

Organic life is both consumer of food and is food for something else. Anything that is not natural cannot be target food. No life on this planet is natural and so cannot be target food.

Evidence #2 All life on this planet was destroyed except for maybe bacteria. Source the bible

For all organic life to be wiped out this planet must have needed massive geo engineering making this planet effectively an artificial planet. No artificial processes can be part of target food and you cant get a bigger artificial process than an artificial planet. Nothing on this planet can be target food.

Evidence #3 ALL the evidence above shows that machinery and tools were extensively use to gather, transport all organic life. Machinery and tools were extensively used to geo engineer this planet in preparation for life

Machinery and/or tools cannot be used in any process that involves target food. Target food fails

Disclaimer. All evidence pointed to from the bible cannot be confirmed as tooth has never supplied any that back his claims

All we need to do now is find evidence that tooth has any honesty at all but alas if fear that is evidence we will never find evident by his latest changes to his claims on what he now says the bible shows and the imposter god the bible is based on.

Why do I feel like I am debating with a really dumbed down Arthur C Clarke?

edit on 31-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
I know you have not got any reason to lie but lie you do, constantly.

Explain why you maintained only man was not from here making man the only creature to be considered not natural and that natural food cannot be the result when processes to grow it are not natural and then suddenly a year latter you claim no life is from here, and that natural food can result even if processes you deem not natural are used to produce it and maintain you knew this all along


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.
Nope. You were caught out in another lie, you refused to even say sorry for and then compound it with more lies making the same claims. You are quite right I am not happy with your answer and trying to confuse and deflect it behind another ignorant attack on evolution just magnifies your dishonest approach.


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.
Do you not know anything about the language you abuse? I made no assumption because I provide proof of what I told you. For you to be caught out in yet another lie and then continue to make the same discredited comment is beyond dishonest but very you.


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.
Jeeze when will you ever stop with the lies. When asked to explain diversity you said aliens used recycled parts. To have recycled parts you need something to recycle them from.

What was Frankenstein’s monster? A creature designed by a creator that used recycled parts.


Your posts.

Then you obviously missed an important part.

Unfortunately for you I did not and that is how I proved without doubt that even your rules when applied to your claims prove target food is nothing more than a foolish fantasy


Fair enough. I have shown target food cannot exist enough times.

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.
Ignoring the usual unsupported drivel that came with your reply. I built a case using your rules to test your claims that without any doubt showed target food fantasy cannot exist.

You failed to supply any evidence or valid argument in defence. YOU FAILED as usual and as above all you have in answer is denial, lies and drivel.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So tell me, is everyone else wrong, and your right?
Well that is your approach to the bible so I don’t see how you (wrongly) accusing someone of doing exactly what you do is very honest of you.

You claim to have knowledge of the bible that even religious scholars that have spent a life time studying and researching according to you have missed.

I asked when and where you learned to read ancient Hebrew, a question you skipped past. A skill you would need to know if a translation was correct or in error. A skill you would need an in depth knowledge of to understand what you are reading.

What we see on this site is that you struggle with English. Demonstrate inability to comprehend what is written. Misuse words constantly. Have no idea of context and apply your one man religious bias to anything you cherry pick from or dismiss with nothing to support the reasons for the dismissal.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





It appears you were even lying about your refusal to play the repeat game that you are the conductor of. Yet another lie from you to avoid answering questions you cannot
Just because you refuse to accept my answers doesn't mean I havent answered.




Everyone has including you. As for trusting you, a confirmed liar. I don’t think so

Your lies that you maintained that includes::

1. claiming man is the only animal that does not come from here making everything he does not natural when you have now claimed to have known all along that you actually believe no life originated on this planet
I have explained over and over that the theory of believing animals are native to this planet was only because of the way that the definition "natural" was written and also just to help people like yourself that have comprehension issues.




2. In desperation to save your discredited fantasy you now claim food can be grown using processes that are not natural but the resulting food will be natural. Something else you have denied for over a year
Wrong, you having comprehension issues again. Food being transported here and set up to grow here is not a natural process, the food growing here is a natural process.




You have never explained why you maintained these lies for a year and those two above alone should make you ashamed to show your face on this forum let alone accuse others of dishonesty.
If being caught in lies is what makes people ashamed to show their face, then why do you continue to show yours?




You have had your fantasy disproven many times but you are far too dishonest to admit it. You prefer your lies
I have no fantasy unlike that of evolution, and still no one has proven me wrong. You can keep telling yourself that and you will probably convince yourself but your just deluded.




Golden Rule supplied by tooth: The golden rule. There can be no artificial processes or processes that are not natural for food to be target food including the use of machines and tools.
Again you lack comprehension. It's the food and consumer that determins the relationship not planet and consumer. However you could say the food did not arrive here by natural means.

So in your argument you could claim that the food is not native to the planet, however that doesn't disprove it possibly being native to a consumer.




Evidence #1 supplied by tooth: No organic life apart from maybe bacteria is from here and so all organic life cannot be considered natural. Source the bible
That is correct, no food would be native to earth, but could still have a relationship with a consumer.




Organic life is both consumer of food and is food for something else. Anything that is not natural cannot be target food. No life on this planet is natural and so cannot be target food.
False, food could be brought to earth just as a species could and therefore there could be target food for the consumer.




Evidence #2 All life on this planet was destroyed except for maybe bacteria. Source the bible
There is no proof of this, only the clue in the bible that life on the planet was wiped out.




For all organic life to be wiped out this planet must have needed massive geo engineering making this planet effectively an artificial planet. No artificial processes can be part of target food and you cant get a bigger artificial process than an artificial planet. Nothing on this planet can be target food.
Thats impossible to know because target food is defined as the relationship between the consumer and the food.




Evidence #3 ALL the evidence above shows that machinery and tools were extensively use to gather, transport all organic life. Machinery and tools were extensively used to geo engineer this planet in preparation for life
There is no proof of this, a high flood could have yeiled the same results.




Machinery and/or tools cannot be used in any process that involves target food. Target food fails
False, again the relationship is described by consumer and food not process.




Disclaimer. All evidence pointed to from the bible cannot be confirmed as tooth has never supplied any that back his claims
All we have is our proof, our food situation, target food or the lack of, and everything we have is our proof.




All we need to do now is find evidence that tooth has any honesty at all but alas if fear that is evidence we will never find evident by his latest changes to his claims on what he now says the bible shows and the imposter god the bible is based on.

Why do I feel like I am debating with a really dumbed down Arthur C Clarke?
[/qu





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join