It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I haven't lied about anything.
I know you have not got any reason to lie but lie you do, constantly.
The idea that only man was not from here was only to help you better understand the definition of the term natural , which you still refuse to accept. You gave some lame excuse that your browser wont show the link, how dishonest can you be.
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
I can see that you struggle through both ignorance and comprehension.
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.
I'm the only one posting definitions, I'm following the rules.
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.
I'm not sure if thats a good analge because the original creator is a heck of a lot better than that. Anyhow the basic idea is the same.
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.
Target Food will remain in good standing until someone proves that most species have an experimental phase in eating, and until someone proves why all units of a species eat the same diet as each other.
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
Well which is it, did I fail to supply or did I lie? I think you need to get your story straight. There is no need to lie, Target Food is a well standing theory with little possibility of failure. A lot of questions will have to be answerd to close it.
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.
I have more sources, more history, and more proof that says your wrong.
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.
Obviously because I have over 30 years interest into he supernatural, and the authors don't.
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 don't have to, I can see through the translation errors.
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.
And all we see about you is your inability to learn, which is why you keep asking the same questions over and over, your ignorance to terms that prove your faith wrong like natural, and your ability to lie in some cases.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
Not a single person has presented credible evidence that Target Food is false, I'm yearning for the moment trust me.
Maybe thats the problem, your pointing things out, and I'm looking for them to be disproven.
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.
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?
You never posted anything credible, post something that doesn't suck and I'll take a look at it.
Just because you refuse to accept my answers doesn't mean I havent answered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It would be nice if you just once did not start a reply with a lie. I answered all your questions with a supporting argument based on your claims tested against your rules
Just because you refuse to accept my answers doesn't mean I havent answered.
That is yet again a pathetic excuse that even a child would be ashamed of. You purposely misled ATS members on every thread you repeated this rubbish over a course of a year plus and was intending to wreck another thread repeating the same rubbish you had just revealed was a lie on this one.
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.
Explain what I asked you to. Why for over a year did you mislead the ATS members claiming that because man was not from here any food he grew could not be natural?
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
Your problem is you have never shown anything I wrote to be a lie. Your lies have been exposed and lies you have peddled purposely over a long period to prop up your childish fantasy. The shame is all yours and still you call others liars when it is only you that has constantly been shown and exposed as a liar.
If being caught in lies is what makes people ashamed to show their face, then why do you continue to show yours?
Fantasy, denial and lies are all you have to offer. I'll keep telling you using your own arguments and claims and though you have not got the backbone to admit you’re wrong everyone will see your dishonesty
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.
Nope. You lack the education to use words. The 'food' is organic life. It does not come in packets or tins it is animal, vegetable, fish, fruit and fowl. All of which you claim are not natural as shown in the bible and cannot be target food by YOUR golden rule
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.
Jeeze you claim a deeper understanding of the bible than learned scholars and cannot even use your own language at a level above that of an infant. See above
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.
See above
That is correct, no food would be native to earth, but could still have a relationship with a consumer.
Another example of your level of ignorance and total lack of understanding. You write about food as if it is not organic life. It is and if you need this explained again and again as it appears you do then you lack any of the tools you need to understand even the basic concepts of the world around you.
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.
I have more sources, more history, and more proof that says your wrong.
Obviously because I have over 30 years interest into he supernatural, and the authors don't.
I don't have to, I can see through the translation errors.
And all we see about you is your inability to learn, which is why you keep asking the same questions over and over, your ignorance to terms that prove your faith wrong like natural, and your ability to lie in some cases.
Back tracking again tooth? Something you claimed was proven and now claim there is no proof for? I purposely asked you at what level life was wiped out and you claimed all life but you are unsure of bacteria.
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.
See above and learn what food is.
Thats impossible to know because target food is defined as the relationship between the consumer and the food.
So high it transported life here from another planet? You already agreed life would have to be transported here by machine. What were they, surfers?
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.
If it is false then you are admitting yet another lie as you have maintained this for over a year. The use of machines and/or tool is not natural and cannot be part of target food.
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.
Showing again you do not understand the difference between proof, evidence and opinion.
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.
What I'm saying is what proof do you have that evolution is to blame for this happening.
First off it is reptiles to mammals.
Second. You are asking that if reptiles change into mammals that change happened? Is that your question?
And what is this fantasy supported with.
Not sure how to make this simpler so you can wrap your head around it. Let's try.
Time 1: No mammals. Reptiles exist.
Time 2: No mammals. Reptiles exist. Some reptiles have some non-reptilian traits.
Time 3: Reptiles exist. Some animals exist which might be reptiles or mammals.
Time 4. Reptiles exist. Some animals exist which might be reptiles or mammals. Mammals exist.
But overlap is not proof of evolution, its a guess, and a poor one at that.
There are so many known forms from Time 1 to time 4 that many of the animals in between cannot be marked as reptile or mammal. They appear to be both. The change from 1 to the other is smooth.
Fossil records can't prove transition anymore than fantasy could.
No faith involved. The fossil record is complete. Even you could view it if you chose to instead of being the close minded poster you are.
Any good scientist knows you have to rule out all other possibiliteis before you can make assumptions.
Typical closed minded being expressed. It is also an argument called an appeal from personal ignorance.
Defects don't prove evolution anymore than fossils would.
Again you place a term such as defect on change or differences. Typical creationist tactic to misrepresent issues.
Again rather than rule things out, you just jump to conclusions and make assumptions.
Foolish claim based on an argument called an appeal to personal ignorance.
I'm well aware of your tactics.
Relying on people known to be liars and shown to be liars makes for a poor starting point.
Again you would rather make assumptions and not rule out other possibilities.
A pointless appeal showing a lack of understanding of how science works. Take a course a course when you get to high school. Learn about objective evidence.
There are factual parts of evolution but as a whole its not a fact. You even admitted yourself that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, so how can it be fact?
Your comment about history is connected to what? Another disconnected blather I suppose.
Just because you posted a definition does not mean you understand where that term fits into science. Your posts make it clear that you have no understanding. Just because you have no clue about this does not mean others are in the same state of ignorance on the subject. Right in this post you show that you have no idea where an hypothesis is used in science.
Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution
There is nothing credible about the lack of evidence that evolution gives. No one can prove that a species can change into another species.
That is a lie. I have and so have other posters.
Then your comprehension skills must be lacking because TF stands tall.
The onus is on you to offer any evidence. You have not. No one has to disprove TF even though I have many times.
Post something credible.
Posting a lie is just that: a lie. Evidence already posted.
Post something credible.
Evidence already posted in this thread.
Try posting something credible, something that explains proof in a species changing into another species.
Evidence already posted.
My responses are direct and to the point, if you don't understand them, its an issue with your comprehension.
Straw man argument. Fact is that you did not respond.
Fossils can't prove evolution anymore than assuming can.
Fossil evidence shows you are wrong. Your silly word games are meaningless.
Overlap is not proof of relation anymore than its proof a creator used recycled parts.
Fossil evidence shows you are wrong.
No one has contested the facts that Target Food presents, so that isn't possible.
TF proven wrong in this thread.
If you can't understand that Target Food is a relationship between consumer and food and not planet and food, maybe you better stick to an easy faith like evolution.
Silly word games are meaningless.
My answers are direct and to the point, and if you don't see that, it must be a comprehension issue on you side.
It would be nice if you just once did not start a reply with a lie. I answered all your questions with a supporting argument based on your claims tested against your rules
Your answers were ridiculous opinion to the extreme and just recycled over and over and never with any logic or reason behind them rarely even addressing the points made.
It's true, and you still refuse to accept the standard meaning of the term natural. You live in your own world.
That is yet again a pathetic excuse that even a child would be ashamed of. You purposely misled ATS members on every thread you repeated this rubbish over a course of a year plus and was intending to wreck another thread repeating the same rubbish you had just revealed was a lie on this one.
I never claimed that.
Explain what I asked you to. Why for over a year did you mislead the ATS members claiming that because man was not from here any food he grew could not be natural?
I'm not reversing anything, but any movement is to help you with your comprehension issues.
Then explain why when I caught you between a rock and a hard place you chose to completely reverse your stance accompanied by a pathetic failure of an excuse
You have lied plenty of times. Like claiming that dog are wolves, no they aren't they are their own species, thats why they have a different name. Or how about the time you thought that one bird had a relationship with man because hes living in thier homes. The relationship is between the bird and the house not the bird and the human, but you love to stretch the goals to make things fit your fantasy.
Your problem is you have never shown anything I wrote to be a lie. Your lies have been exposed and lies you have peddled purposely over a long period to prop up your childish fantasy. The shame is all yours and still you call others liars when it is only you that has constantly been shown and exposed as a liar.
There hasn't been any dishonesty on my part, but it would appear there has been on yours.
Fantasy, denial and lies are all you have to offer. I'll keep telling you using your own arguments and claims and though you have not got the backbone to admit you’re wrong everyone will see your dishonesty
Again target food is determined by the consumer / food relationship not the planet and consumer.
Nope. You lack the education to use words. The 'food' is organic life. It does not come in packets or tins it is animal, vegetable, fish, fruit and fowl. All of which you claim are not natural as shown in the bible and cannot be target food by YOUR golden rule
And here YOU are having comprehension issues with it.
Jeeze you claim a deeper understanding of the bible than learned scholars and cannot even use your own language at a level above that of an infant. See above
Poision ivy is organic, but I'm not going to eat that.
Another example of your level of ignorance and total lack of understanding. You write about food as if it is not organic life. It is and if you need this explained again and again as it appears you do then you lack any of the tools you need to understand even the basic concepts of the world around you.
Where have you been for the past year? I'm not going to play the repeat game.
So don't you post it?
You claimed to have proven everything else wrong, why don't you give this one a try.
A doubtful comment and meaningless. The issue is the material posted and not your personal interest.
Your opinion has no weight.
This appeal to an unsubstantiated personal ability is of no importance.
The science I have presented, is the smoking gun, that proves we aren't from here. We have no Target food, Our DNA has been modified we are GMO's
It is clear who is unable to learn the meaning of basic terms such as: science, evolution, theory, fact, hypothesis, faith, opinion. It is also clear who denies the posting of evidence when it has happened several times.
The thread is completely bare of any science matters that might refute evolution save for a single piece presented by Bob Sholtz. After a bit of discussion the issue was resolved.
Do you have any science to present?
Jeeze do you want them listed again?
I haven't lied about anything.
A truth cannot be explained with a lie. A lie can be hidden by lies and then more lies. Your reply does not explain why for over a year you continually mislead ATS members.
The idea that only man was not from here was only to help you better understand the definition of the term natural , which you still refuse to accept.
Nope. That was your claim that you attributed to me as you always do. I told you your link takes me to the google front page. I also asked you to post any of the 8 you claimed said the same thing, you refused. I posted one of my own as you claimed they all say the same thing and you rejected it.
You gave some lame excuse that your browser wont show the link, how dishonest can you be.
And that relates to the lie you told about me and the proof I gave you of exposing your dishonest accusation, how?
I can see that you struggle through both ignorance and comprehension.
Again that relates to your accusation of me lying, how. Also posting a definition does not mean you understand it. You clearly do not, any of them.
I'm the only one posting definitions, I'm following the rules.
You have used the phrase 'frankenstiened foods' many times. My analogy clearly shows how recycled parts would be used. The fact it is only a horror fantasy shows how ridiculous your claims for diversity are.
I'm not sure if thats a good analge because the original creator is a heck of a lot better than that. Anyhow the basic idea is the same.
Apart from they and I have, many times. There is no need. I have tested your claims you say are in the bible against your rules and target food fails every time. FYI target food fantasy has never been held in good standing anywhere but in your head.
Target Food will remain in good standing until someone proves that most species have an experimental phase in eating, and until someone proves why all units of a species eat the same diet as each other.
Why does it have to be one or the other. You over use both.
Well which is it, did I fail to supply or did I lie?
I have tested your claims you say are in the bible against your rules and target food fails every time. Nuff said.
I think you need to get your story straight. There is no need to lie, Target Food is a well standing theory with little possibility of failure. A lot of questions will have to be answerd to close it.
The claim is that a flood was used, but you yourself said there is no proof.
Back tracking again tooth? Something you claimed was proven and now claim there is no proof for? I purposely asked you at what level life was wiped out and you claimed all life but you are unsure of bacteria.
Now you understand that would mean this planet would need to be prepared for the life you claim was brought here, making the earth artificial you change your tune. I'm not dancing.
So what is it tooth. Your assumptions and fantasies based on what you say the bible claims is a failure and is as pathetic as it seems showing you have no understanding of the bible either.
Or this is an artificially prepared planet.
Water could have settled where it is now, in the ocean.
So high it transported life here from another planet? You already agreed life would have to be transported here by machine. What were they, surfers?
A flood so big but cannot be seen in the geological record? After such a flood with no life on this planet explain the atmosphere and soil which needs life to maintain it.
The use of those is not natural but you can still have natural food.
If it is false then you are admitting yet another lie as you have maintained this for over a year. The use of machines and/or tool is not natural and cannot be part of target food.
I have allready shown the definition that evidence is proof.
Showing again you do not understand the difference between proof, evidence and opinion.
proof
/pro͞of/Noun
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Adjective
Able to withstand something damaging; resistant.
Verb
Make (fabric) waterproof: "the tent is made from proofed nylon".
Synonyms
noun. evidence - test - trial - demonstration - testimony
adjective. impermeable
verb. waterproof
[/ex
Proof google]
From the point of view that god would be our creator, and know what we need to survive, you would be correct, but he wans't our creator.
I have used your claims that you say come from the bible. A book you call a clear historical document and applied YOUR rules to them and target food fails every time.
Target Food is observed in every diet we look at.
It is inescapable that target food is a poorly thought out fantasy protected only by the lies of its founder.
Then why do you never supply any of it.
I have more sources, more history, and more proof that says your wrong.
The author???? I wrote
Obviously because I have over 30 years interest into he supernatural, and the authors don't.
Where do I refer to authors? Religious scholars in many cases devote their whole life to the study of the bible and have access to a huge collective resource of serious research.
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.
I don't have to, I can see through the translation errors.
I repeat the same questions because you repeatedly do not answer them. Referring to evolution as a faith displays you either cannot or will not understand what you are trying to attack. You cannot even understand that all living things are food and consumers of food. You have somehow isolated one from the other to pursue a baseless fantasy. It is tragic really.
And all we see about you is your inability to learn, which is why you keep asking the same questions over and over, your ignorance to terms that prove your faith wrong like natural, and your ability to lie in some cases.
I have provided numerous quotes from the bible, from Pye, from diets of various species. Where have you been.
Then why do you never supply any of it.
The tranlators of the bible will know very little about the supernatural.
The author???? I wrote
Which is fine, but how much experience do they have with the supernatural.
Where do I refer to authors? Religious scholars in many cases devote their whole life to the study of the bible and have access to a huge collective resource of serious research.
For you to dismiss all that and claim only you understand is displaying delusion at its finest
Thats not true at all, translation errors can be found when parts of the story can't make sense. As an example, in genesis where Adam and Eve remember what it feels like to be embarrased, should not be possible as they were supposed to have just been created.
Do you understand how ignorant that statement is. No you really don’t or you would not have made it
What you mean to say is you don't want to accept my answers, but that is not an option. My answers are direct, to he point and well written. If you have any problem with them its only because they are not fitting your fantasy.
I repeat the same questions because you repeatedly do not answer them. Referring to evolution as a faith displays you either cannot or will not understand what you are trying to attack. You cannot even understand that all living things are food and consumers of food. You have somehow isolated one from the other to pursue a baseless fantasy. It is tragic really.
What I'm saying is what proof do you have that evolution is to blame for this happening.
And what is this fantasy supported with.
But overlap is not proof of evolution, its a guess, and a poor one at that.
Fossil records can't prove transition anymore than fantasy could.
Any good scientist knows you have to rule out all other possibiliteis before you can make assumptions.
Defects don't prove evolution anymore than fossils would.
Again rather than rule things out, you just jump to conclusions and make assumptions.