Science against evolution

page: 29
12
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I allready have.

I say that is a lie. You've posted no evidence to support your fairy tale.


There is no evidence showing Target Food is wrong, what did you post, another theory?

Learn the meaning of words. I posted evidence that animals do experiment with eating. I posted evidence against the diets you claimed.


Target Food is an observed event, so no weight needed.

Then why not post some evidence which you have not done.


Lab techniques dont happen naturally.

That is wrong. Lab techniques often repeat what happens naturally. You'll learn that when you take a basic biology course in high school.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I never said that was the timeline.

Never said you did. I am simply pointing out that for half a millennium people have been smart enough to reject the fiction of the biblical flood. Even Leonardo realized in his day that no global flood ever occurred.


There is if it all started from the skys and rained for 40 days and 40 nights. It's also possible that much of the water has settled into other parts of the planet.

False. You have no idea how much water it would take. Even if it rained 5 feet an hour nonstop for 40 days and nights it would not be enough water. The suggestion that the water settled to some other part of the planet is so goofy you really need to rethink it. Reminds me of the joke: The worst 5 years of a creationist's life are the 3rd grade.


Then you need to tell google that thier definition is all wrong cause they claim that Proof is Evidence.

Just because you do not understand what you read does not mean that others make the same mistake.


Could be, but then again your not using them both in the same context. Are you looking for finger prints or a burglar? I get your point though.

There is a difference between proof and evidence. One is suggestive and the other is a certainty. Evidence suggests a situation. That is where charlatans like Sitchin and VonDaniken operate. They present some evidence and put their own twist to it. A good example are the spaceships they see in medieval paintings. They see someone sitting in a craft above a city or landscape. These spacecraft are actually medieval representations of the Sun and Moon. What these hoaxers do is go from this evidence to claiming proof. First they lie. Then they claim proof when all they have is misrepresented evidence.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Aside from the wiki incident about the Star child, I have never seen anything slightly credible against Pye. I quoted Earth not being our home from the bible, and I also quoted parts of genesis that appear to be more of an abduction. I also quoted the ezekiel chapter where god visits us in a space craft.

The wiki article presents two studies which state that Pye is wrong in his claims. Did you miss that part? The reports show that Pye is disingenuous in claiming any nonhuman component to the DNA. The report states that DNA sequencing of the nuclear DNA was not successful or replicated after numerous attempts. It also reports that DNA matching to Native American haplogroups was inconclusive with no matches. Pye suggests that the failure of the tests means something other than the tests failed. What a wacko Pye is. Is anyone actually going to be tricked by Pye's baloney?

Ezekial does not use a spacecraft. That is a ludicrous comment probably from VonDaniken. You forgot to provide the bible quotes. You have also posted that you have not quoted the bible. So what gives?


It's an important fact. How would you feel if a creationist wrote all the work for evolution?

Still worthless opinion.


I just gave one of the best ones.

So you chose genesis 3 and a translations called the New International Version. Where is there anything about Adam and Eve not being from Earth. Right there in genesis 3 it states:

So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Adam is going to toil on the soil from which he was created. He is at the place where he was created according to the bible. So where do you get off with these odd claims of yours?

In an earlier post you wrote:

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.

Where do you get idea from?


And you should make mention of these flaws, cause you not going to find them in the theory of Target Food or intervention.

Actually TF is worse off than the things I already described.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And why is this same rule not used in speciation? It's assumed that because they stop breeding that they have changed species. But its possible that got polycystic ovareis, or low sperm count, or some type of chemical inbalance. But no, they jump to it having to mean that they changed species.

Not sure why you still do not understand that species evolve, not individuals. It has been hundreds of posts where you make the same glaring error of thinking that what affects an individual is evolution. Species evolve not individuals.


Just like in evolution.

Not sure what this short quip is supposed to mean.

Sciences collect evidence. Part of that evidence becomes facts. Facts are explained by theories. Theories in science must be falsifiable. Theories are test and tested and retested. New facts are added. When theories are found to have problems then they are modified or replaced.

The theories of evolution are based on facts just like all scientific theories. The evolution theories explain the fact that life on Earth has changed and is changing. A question is why does life change? Evolution theories explain why new species can appear. A question is why does life on Earth change? Evolution theories explain why new species do appear. There are many questions about evolution that can be formed. The theories explain the questions.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Tons of evidence has been posted about TF including patterns, and stages of hunger and diets to prove it all as example.
When YOUR rules are tested against YOUR claims target food fails every time. Target food does not exist


Target Food is already observed in over 2 dozen species, with one actually using target food and the rest being in phases of hunger.
Really this could change things. Please supply the evidence gathered during those observations so that I can test them against your rules to see if they fail the same way all your other claims have.


You would be wise to study the effects of Target Food and learn about the 3 phases of hunger as it pertains to all life on this planet, EVEN YOU. Target Food is very real.
Sadly you must have missed all the times I have tested your claims against your rules and target food failed. As you have made me aware you do not like me repeating myself. Please refer back to those pages.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There is no evidence showing Target Food is wrong, what did you post, another theory?
There never will be. How can you show evidence of something that does not exist?

On the other hand when your claims that you say support target food are tested against your rules it fails every time. Unless you have any other evidence that can be tested target food does not exist


Target Food is an observed event, so no weight needed.
So you keep saying but sadly never supply the evidence gathered during those observations to support your claim. They probably don’t exist either.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Then you need to tell google that thier definition is all wrong cause they claim that Proof is Evidence.
FYI Google is a search engine



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And you should make mention of these flaws, cause you not going to find them in the theory of Target Food or intervention.
Nope. What we find over many, many pages that when you test your claims against your rules target food fails every time.

So target food is at best a failed idea and until you can provide something that can be tested that does not fail when your rules are applied it does not exist.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Scientific theories as I pointed out, do change if that is necessary. Changes are made when the theory is unable to explain observations. Sometimes theories are dropped when they are shown to be false. Examples of discarded theories are: Lamarckian evolution and phlogiston.

Unlike a scientific theory, TF does not appear to be based on facts and is not tested, nor is it being held up to the falsification standard of real scientific theories. But, TF is being altered over time as new evidence shows TF to be false. TF needs to be discarded as was phlogiston and the long ago discarded concept of spontaneous generation.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Genomes, don't prove relation, at best they suggest it. There is no proof that we are all related, that is a misnomer in your mind. Sure its nice to fantisize and think we are all related but where is the proof.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Evolution is change. There is no master plan. I keep suggesting that you take a curse when you get to high school because you continue to show a complete misunderstanding of evolution. There is no plan. There is no goal. Changes do not have to make sense.
Thats just your way of coming up with something to dismiss the idea of intelligence or possibility of a creator. The fact is you don't know one way or the other if there is intent behind changes, and I'm leaning more on the idea that everything happens for a reason.




The changes that are observed are evolution. The fact that changes have occurred to life on Earth is the fact of evolution. There are no gaps in the transition from reptiles to mammals. The fossil record shows a remarkably detail record of this part of the evolution of life.
There are plenty of gaps in evolution, in fact I just heard yesterday that the closest we have to a whale is a hippopotamouse.




Again, take a course and learn something. And while you are at it learn the difference between evidence and proof.
I already posted the definition for proof and it included evidence.




No speculation. No assumptions. Clear and voluminous evidence from fossils to anatomy to pathology to biochemistry to genetics to geology all support evolution. The support is overwhelming. Course if you took a course you'd learn that.
Everything I have been sent to here on ATS about evolution made it clear there is no proof of evolution, and that its never been witnessed either. You have clearly gone on a connect the dot binge and put together a puzzle where the pieces don't fit. If evolution were real we would have a lot more internediate species then we do, but the best we have is speciation, which doesn't prove a species is changing, and doesn't prove a species is changing into another species either. You have done all the guess work that you can, its time to man up and start presenting facts instead of pseudo science.




Once again the overt statement that you are close minded.
Where is your smoking gun?




You are such a kidder. Please name 1 that explains the clear and gapless transition from reptile to mammal.
What if they were simply just brought here later on, oh, and we even have documentation of it too, its called the bible.




Laughable comment from someone that can't spell or write simple sentences or understand the meaning of basic terms.
You don't use reasoning, you use the jump to conclusions mat.




Laughable.
It's evidence, its not proof.




That makes no sense at all and when you learn what these terms mean you should feel embarrassment at having posted that
Facts are presented in theory, not through hypothesis, you don't guess something then call it a fact, well you do anyhow.




More gibberish and confusion from you.

Here is the lie you posted: "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 wrote before that was a lie and I am affirming again that you are telling lies. Are you telling lies because you are angry that you were admonished by the mods? Are you telling lies because you have nothing better to do?
Are you thereby admitting that humans have witnessed a species changing into another species? And put your money where your mouth is, I want to see proof, not this lame excuse that you claim you already posted it when you haven't.




Everything posted about TF has been shown to be false.
Nothing has ever proven Target Food to be false and I honeslty wait for that moment.




Irrelevant baloney. I have not done anything to even suggest that. This is the sort of drivel posted by those that know they are wrong and can't admit it.
My argument is strongly supported by the aforementioned, so when you claim that I'm wrong, you are also claiming they are all also wrong. So what is, is everyone else wrong, and you are right?




The thread is about science against evolution. So far nothing from you at all. The only thing you've posted is some nonsense called TF that has been repeatedly shown to be an abysmal failure and mention of 3 charlatans called Pye, VonDaniken, and Sitchen.

1. Pye has been shown to be wrong
Aside from on problem with wiki, Pye has NEVER been shown to be wrong, just a bunch of monkeys on here claiming that he is wrong, but I'm not interested in opinions.




2. VonDaniken makes up stupid lies about such things as the representations of the Sun and Moon in medieval art
3. Sitchin makes up fairy tales about planets that have impossible properties

Is this all you can do, use t



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





2. VonDaniken makes up stupid lies about such things as the representations of the Sun and Moon in medieval art
3. Sitchin makes up fairy tales about planets that have impossible properties

Is this all you can do, use the names of well known hoaxers?
Again, anyone can claim they are hoaxers, I wasn't looking for opinions.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


hippopotamouse.
What the hell is a hippopotamouse? Please supply a link



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Sorry if I get what you posted here a bit off. It is quite clumsily written and disconnected.

So you are saying that fused chromosomes are lab techniques? Are you saying that chromosome issues require a lab technician?
Read what I wrote, don't make assumptions or throw in your own ideas. The act of fusing two chromosomes together is a LAB technique.




That's ridiculous. Chromosomal issues are not rare. They happen.

The notion that these represent anything other than natural events is hilarious. Please take a course and learn for a change.
So what your trying to say, is something that has taken humans over a millenia to learn how to do, just happens naturaly in the wild. Your wrong. DNA does not change on its own, there has to be some guided force to allow this to happen. And in the event that I am wrong, which I'm not, you are in essence claiming that evolution is so smart, it not only has the ability to change our DNA, but can also perform complex techniques once only thought to be possible in a LAB.

Everyone bow to your new God EVOLUTION.




Evidence already posted in thread. Fossils reveal the evolutionary past of the planet and sometimes with great clarity as in the case of the evolution of mammals from reptiles.
But thats evidence, not proof, don't you think your jumping the gun a tad there.




So you agree that changes happen. One of the changes we are talking about is the change from reptile to mammal. You wonder if mammals at the end of the change are the same species as the reptiles at the beginning of the change? Serious?
There has never been a study that has proven that a reptile can change into a mammal.

What are you working on?




So far nothing was posted in this thread other than your opinion and whimsical claims of success without posting any real evidence. On the other hand ridiculous claims of "animals do not experiment with their eating" is a slam dunk failure as presented in this thread.
The theory of Target Food is not limited to only the diets I posted, it applies to all diets. I'm still looking for the diet that problaims an experimental phase, but you would need several of them. I'm still waiting.




It is a fairy tale with no supporting evidence and has been shown wrong many, many times including in this thread.
Well you can keep telling yourself that, and I'm sure youll convince yourself of it too, but the fact is no one has presented even a glimer of hope to disprove Target Food. It's a solid theory with nothing to prove it wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





I say that is a lie. You've posted no evidence to support your fairy tale.
So now your admitting to being a liar. Your claiming that I haven't presented any proof, yet you have been arguing with me and claiming it to be a fantasy. How could you know if its a fantasy if you have never seen the proof?




Learn the meaning of words. I posted evidence that animals do experiment with eating. I posted evidence against the diets you claimed.
There is a big difference between something having a large diet, and experimenting with food. You haven't produced anything that shows anything experimenting with food, that wasn't starving.




Then why not post some evidence which you have not done.
I have, and you will have to look back to read them.




That is wrong. Lab techniques often repeat what happens naturally. You'll learn that when you take a basic biology course in high school.
The act of fusing two chromosomes together is not found naturally, chemical scissors are needed in a strict enviroment to perform this action, perhaps it would help you to study up a tad about this.


These DNA changes at the fusion point do not fit with ID if they don't serve a purpose. Otherwise, why put them there? It will be interesting to see the results of experiments that might show if these sequences matter or not


fused chromosomes
The reason why this doesn't fit into ID is because everyone is looking for a positive change, where this could have been a punishment or a way to control us.



Never said you did. I am simply pointing out that for half a millennium people have been smart enough to reject the fiction of the biblical flood. Even Leonardo realized in his day that no global flood ever occurred
There are still to many areas on this planet that appear to be missing large quanties of water, like the grand canyon. A mile deep and 7-14 miles wide. Where did all the water go, where did it come from?




False. You have no idea how much water it would take. Even if it rained 5 feet an hour nonstop for 40 days and nights it would not be enough water. The suggestion that the water settled to some other part of the planet is so goofy you really need to rethink it. Reminds me of the joke: The worst 5 years of a creationist's life are the 3rd grade.
I think its possible to have water underneath plates.




Just because you do not understand what you read does not mean that others make the same mistake.
Dont shoot the messenger, I can't keep reposting it just because you live in your own world of definitions.




There is a difference between proof and evidence. One is suggestive and the other is a certainty. Evidence suggests a situation. That is where charlatans like Sitchin and VonDaniken operate. They present some evidence and put their own twist to it. A good example are the spaceships they see in medieval paintings. They see someone sitting in a craft above a city or landscape. These spacecraft are actually medieval representations of the Sun and Moon. What these hoaxers do is go from this evidence to claiming proof. First they lie. Then they claim proof when all they have is misrepresented evidence.
Then you must have missed the 14 links I posted that all agree there were UFO's in biblical times.




The wiki article presents two studies which state that Pye is wrong in his claims. Did you miss that part?
So because a 3rd party took their own views about star child and posted them and refused to allow Pye to adjust them, your going to automatically believe the 3rd party over the author? I think its more like your going to believe whatever fits your fantasy.




The reports show that Pye is disingenuous in claiming any nonhuman component to the DNA. The report states that DNA sequencing of the nuclear DNA was not successful or replicated after numerous attempts. It also reports that DNA matching to Native American haplogroups was inconclusive with no matches.
The first test was faulty, they used an old primer technique, and the tests that followed were a lot more thorough. The problem was he jumped on the chance of getting the skull tested, and later learned that the test could only reveal if there were human traits present in the DNA. The test did not have the ability to test for unknown DNA patterns. The most recent test did, and proved its either part human, or a hybrid, but has DNA that is NOT found in the NIH database. They were able to conclude from that, its alien.

Again, it would be very wise of you to do the honest research and read his site that gives a blow by blow breakdown o each test before



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Before making the embarrasing claims that your making.

star child




Pye suggests that the failure of the tests means something other than the tests failed. What a wacko Pye is. Is anyone actually going to be tricked by Pye's baloney?
Well Pye was just eager to get DNA testing not knowing that it would be faulty because of the type of test he is needing isn't of the norm. He needs a test that will reveal everything, including unknown things so that this skull can be identified.




Ezekial does not use a spacecraft. That is a ludicrous comment probably from VonDaniken. You forgot to provide the bible quotes. You have also posted that you have not quoted the bible. So what gives?
I posted 14 links for itero to read quite some time back that all claim it to be a ufo.

Besides just being incredulous, what is YOUR proof that its NOT a UFO?




So you chose genesis 3 and a translations called the New International Version. Where is there anything about Adam and Eve not being from Earth. Right there in genesis 3 it states:
If you have the background into the supernatural like I do, and you read that entire section, its plain to see that there are some things amiss with the event. They were abducted, not created.




Adam is going to toil on the soil from which he was created. He is at the place where he was created according to the bible. So where do you get off with these odd claims of yours?

In an earlier post you wrote:

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.

Where do you get idea from?
Because its evident that they got their memory back at this point, and became embarrased from being naked. Their memory was erased after being abducted, which is why they had no embarrasment.




Actually TF is worse off than the things I already described.
I'm still waiting for anyone to prove Target Food wrong, and I just don't mean people saying its false.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Not sure why you still do not understand that species evolve, not individuals. It has been hundreds of posts where you make the same glaring error of thinking that what affects an individual is evolution. Species evolve not individuals.
There is no proof that species slowly change into another species after much time. There are however many varied species here on earth but thats not proof.




Not sure what this short quip is supposed to mean.

Sciences collect evidence. Part of that evidence becomes facts. Facts are explained by theories. Theories in science must be falsifiable. Theories are test and tested and retested. New facts are added. When theories are found to have problems then they are modified or replaced.

The theories of evolution are based on facts just like all scientific theories. The evolution theories explain the fact that life on Earth has changed and is changing. A question is why does life change? Evolution theories explain why new species can appear. A question is why does life on Earth change? Evolution theories explain why new species do appear. There are many questions about evolution that can be formed. The theories explain the questions.
Just because its convenient, doesn't mean its accurate. You just found a way to connect dots is all.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





When YOUR rules are tested against YOUR claims target food fails every time. Target food does not exist
It's scarce, but I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.




Really this could change things. Please supply the evidence gathered during those observations so that I can test them against your rules to see if they fail the same way all your other claims have.
I'll make it easy for you, you can even pick the diets, just pick as many diets as you wish from however many species.




Sadly you must have missed all the times I have tested your claims against your rules and target food failed. As you have made me aware you do not like me repeating myself. Please refer back to those pages.
Target food is the GOAL of any species, and easy to prove by looking at ANY diet.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's scarce, but I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.
When YOUR rules are tested against YOUR claims target food fails every time. It is not scarce and your opinion changes nothing. Target food does not exist


Really this could change things. Please supply the evidence gathered during those observations so that I can test them against your rules to see if they fail the same way all your other claims have

I'll make it easy for you, you can even pick the diets, just pick as many diets as you wish from however many species.
Oh I see. You still do not understand how this works. You made the claim


Target Food is already observed in over 2 dozen species, with one actually using target food and the rest being in phases of hunger.
I have asked you to supply the evidence gathered from these observations so I can test them using your rules. Your reply makes it look like you were just making dishonest, unfounded claims that you cannot back up and offering a list?


Target food is the GOAL of any species, and easy to prove by looking at ANY diet.
Really? Then why when YOUR rules are tested against YOUR claims target food fails every time. Perhaps when you supply the evidence gathered during the observations you allude to we can make sense of the claim you just made.

I just thought you may be saying a list is the observed evidence but no, that would be just stupid.

EDIT just incase but I know you wont just post a list

Scientific Observation
edit on 1-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There never will be. How can you show evidence of something that does not exist?
The evidence is in the patterns of all of the diets, and you can't argue or cheat your way out of that one.




On the other hand when your claims that you say support target food are tested against your rules it fails every time. Unless you have any other evidence that can be tested target food does not exist
Target Food has NEVER failed.




So you keep saying but sadly never supply the evidence gathered during those observations to support your claim. They probably don’t exist either.
Target Food and its evidence have been posted many times, I'm not going to repeat them.




FYI Google is a search engine
FYI Google also has definitions.




Nope. What we find over many, many pages that when you test your claims against your rules target food fails every time.
What we see is you trying to make it fail, but it doesn't.





top topics
 
12
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join