Science against evolution

page: 27
12
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I know you have not got any reason to lie but lie you do, constantly.
I haven't lied about anything.




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
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.




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 can see that you struggle through both ignorance and comprehension.




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 the only one posting definitions, I'm following the rules.




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.
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.




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
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.




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.
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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
I have more sources, more history, and more proof that says your wrong.




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.
Obviously because I have over 30 years interest into he supernatural, and the authors don't.




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.




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.
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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So what you are saying is there is a plethora of mammals transitioning to reptiles that it just has to be that evolution occured?

First off it is reptiles to mammals.

Second. You are asking that if reptiles change into mammals that change happened? Is that your question?


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.

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.

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.

Is that simple enough? If not take a course when you get to high school.


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?

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.


New, or new found? I doubt very seriously if new species have emerged from them, thats a crock.

Typical closed minded being expressed. It is also an argument called an appeal from personal ignorance.


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.

Again you show that you do not know the meaning of the word specie. You really need to take a course when you get to high school.


Sure defects are always possible but there is no way in hell that the life on this planet was constructed entirely from defects.

Again you place a term such as defect on change or differences. Typical creationist tactic to misrepresent issues.


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

Foolish claim based on an argument called an appeal to personal ignorance.


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.

Relying on people known to be liars and shown to be liars makes for a poor starting point.


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

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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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?

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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Not a single person has presented credible evidence that Target Food is false, I'm yearning for the moment trust me.

That is a lie. I have and so have other posters.


Maybe thats the problem, your pointing things out, and I'm looking for them to be disproven.

The onus is on you to offer any evidence. You have not. No one has to disprove TF even though I have many times.


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.

Posting a lie is just that: a lie. Evidence already posted.


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?

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.

Evidence already posted.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just because you refuse to accept my answers doesn't mean I havent answered.

Straw man argument. Fact is that you did not respond.


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.

Fossil evidence shows you are wrong. Your silly word games are meaningless.


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.

Fossil evidence shows you are wrong.


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.

TF proven wrong in this thread.


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.

Silly word games are meaningless.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just because you refuse to accept my answers doesn't mean I havent answered.
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.


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.
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.


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
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?

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


If being caught in lies is what makes people ashamed to show their face, then why do you continue to show yours?
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.


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.
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 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.
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


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.
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


That is correct, no food would be native to earth, but could still have a relationship with a consumer.
See above


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.
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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have more sources, more history, and more proof that says your wrong.

So don't you post it?


Obviously because I have over 30 years interest into he supernatural, and the authors don't.

A doubtful comment and meaningless. The issue is the material posted and not your personal interest.


I don't have to, I can see through the translation errors.

This appeal to an unsubstantiated personal ability is of no importance.


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.

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?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
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.


Thats impossible to know because target food is defined as the relationship between the consumer and the food.
See above and learn what food is.


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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
Showing again you do not understand the difference between proof, evidence and opinion.

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.

It is inescapable that target food is a poorly thought out fantasy protected only by the lies of its founder.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





First off it is reptiles to mammals.

Second. You are asking that if reptiles change into mammals that change happened? Is that your question?
What I'm saying is what proof do you have that evolution is to blame for this happening.




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.
And what is this fantasy supported with.




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.
But overlap is not proof of evolution, its a guess, and a poor one at that.




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.
Fossil records can't prove transition anymore than fantasy could.




Typical closed minded being expressed. It is also an argument called an appeal from personal ignorance.
Any good scientist knows you have to rule out all other possibiliteis before you can make assumptions.




Again you place a term such as defect on change or differences. Typical creationist tactic to misrepresent issues.
Defects don't prove evolution anymore than fossils would.




Foolish claim based on an argument called an appeal to personal ignorance.
Again rather than rule things out, you just jump to conclusions and make assumptions.




Relying on people known to be liars and shown to be liars makes for a poor starting point.
I'm well aware of your tactics.




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.
Again you would rather make assumptions and not rule out other possibilities.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





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 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?




That is a lie. I have and so have other posters.
There is nothing credible about the lack of evidence that evolution gives. No one can prove that a species can change into another species.




The onus is on you to offer any evidence. You have not. No one has to disprove TF even though I have many times.
Then your comprehension skills must be lacking because TF stands tall.




Posting a lie is just that: a lie. Evidence already posted.
Post something credible.




Evidence already posted in this thread.
Post something credible.




Evidence already posted.
Try posting something credible, something that explains proof in a species changing into another species.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Straw man argument. Fact is that you did not respond.
My responses are direct and to the point, if you don't understand them, its an issue with your comprehension.




Fossil evidence shows you are wrong. Your silly word games are meaningless.
Fossils can't prove evolution anymore than assuming can.




Fossil evidence shows you are wrong.
Overlap is not proof of relation anymore than its proof a creator used recycled parts.




TF proven wrong in this thread.
No one has contested the facts that Target Food presents, so that isn't possible.




Silly word games are meaningless.
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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
My answers are direct and to the point, and if you don't see that, it must be a comprehension issue on you side.




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.
It's true, and you still refuse to accept the standard meaning of the term natural. You live in your own world.




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 never claimed that.




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
I'm not reversing anything, but any movement is to help you with your comprehension issues.




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.
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.




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
There hasn't been any dishonesty on my part, but it would appear there has been on yours.




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 target food is determined by the consumer / food relationship not the planet and consumer.




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
And here YOU are having comprehension issues with it.




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.
Poision ivy is organic, but I'm not going to eat that.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





So don't you post it?
Where have you been for the past year? I'm not going to play the repeat game.




A doubtful comment and meaningless. The issue is the material posted and not your personal interest.
You claimed to have proven everything else wrong, why don't you give this one a try.




This appeal to an unsubstantiated personal ability is of no importance.
Your opinion has no weight.




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?
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



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
i]reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I haven't lied about anything.
Jeeze do you want them listed again?


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.
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.


You gave some lame excuse that your browser wont show the link, how dishonest can you be.
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.

Hence my conclusion that you cherry picked or made up your definition. Try the truth for once.


I can see that you struggle through both ignorance and comprehension.
And that relates to the lie you told about me and the proof I gave you of exposing your dishonest accusation, how?


I'm the only one posting definitions, I'm following the rules.
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 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.
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.


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.
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.


Well which is it, did I fail to supply or did I lie?
Why does it have to be one or the other. You over use both.


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.
I have tested your claims you say are in the bible against your rules and target food fails every time. Nuff said.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
The claim is that a flood was used, but you yourself said there is no proof.




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.
Water could have settled where it is now, in the ocean.




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.
The use of those is not natural but you can still have natural food.




Showing again you do not understand the difference between proof, evidence and opinion.
I have allready shown the definition that evidence is proof.


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]




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.
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.




It is inescapable that target food is a poorly thought out fantasy protected only by the lies of its founder.
Target Food is observed in every diet we look at.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have more sources, more history, and more proof that says your wrong.
Then why do you never supply any of it.


Obviously because I have over 30 years interest into he supernatural, and the authors don't.
The author???? I wrote


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.
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


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.

Do you understand how ignorant that statement is. No you really don’t or you would not have made it


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 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.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Then why do you never supply any of it.
I have provided numerous quotes from the bible, from Pye, from diets of various species. Where have you been.




The author???? I wrote
The tranlators of the bible will know very little about 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
Which is fine, but how much experience do they have with the supernatural.




Do you understand how ignorant that statement is. No you really don’t or you would not have made it
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.




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 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.

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



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



What I'm saying is what proof do you have that evolution is to blame for this happening.

Evolution is change. The gradual change from reptile to mammal is well established in the fossil record. That change is evolution.


And what is this fantasy supported with.

Already posted. Please read the thread.


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.

Apparently I didn't dumb it down far enough to be understood.

The fossil record is very clear that once there were no mammals and then there were and in between are so many intermediate species that the transition is readily apparent.


Any good scientist knows you have to rule out all other possibiliteis before you can make assumptions.

That makes no sense.


Defects don't prove evolution anymore than fossils would.

Again, gibberish.


Again rather than rule things out, you just jump to conclusions and make assumptions.

No assumptions. Just stating well established facts.

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





 
12
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join