Science against evolution

page: 32
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





How does you infecting another site with your tired and failed fantasy show target food fantasy has been observed by other people? You are really funny
Because to many people are involved in the posting of various diets of all species. Those diets all confirm the patterns I have observed in all of them, and those patterns confirm Target Food exists.




You should be able to find your answer in your clear historical document. If you have to concoct a fantasy to explain it you may even consider it may just be a story.

The rest of your post consists of you playing the repeat game version of solitaire
Oh ya, and the bible agrees, what a coincidence huh?




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





NO... you have broadened your scope to being wrong about everything, already posted in this thread as well is others you've spammed.
You fail to understand that the smallest biological unit to be able to evolve is a population. Individuals can't evolve. Families can't evolve. It takes a whole population of individuals to evolve.

One more thing... try using what millions of your ancestors fought so hard to pass on and actually think about what you are reading.


It hasn't been relivent to anything I have been talking about.
Besides, what is deadline for evolving. Do you have to live with another to be part of the population, what if you live close by but keep to yourself. Such a crock.



The above rambling proves you are trying to obscure your lack of evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
In other words, you do not understand how evolution actually works, and your only response is to repeat your previous assertion. What is your reasoning here, can you explain it?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats right, learn how to read.
And that is how you reply to a post showing how you have again misread what I posted to avoid the question. Incredible.



Thats false, Target Food is a relationship between the consumer and the food, not the planet and the food.
Not according to your golden rule.


The process to get it here, or to grow is unnatural but the the food is natural.
Let’s be clear as you seem to be unable to grasp this. You are talking about 'TARGET FOOD' which you classify differently than food. Apply your golden rule and target food fails.


False.
The silly thing here is you are arguing against yourself. If your golden rule is false then all you have claimed, all the rules you have made up around target food are false. Ergo Target food is false.


Quit being so dishonest.
Like I wrote. You have no proof for your accusation and no moral compass. You are the only one displaying dishonesty here.


Prove it.
I refer you to my answer.
Route Closed



Target food can still be native to a consumer if they are from the same place.
Your claim has already been tested against your rules and failed. Please refer to that test on previous pages of this thread to avoid repetition


I did not ask you to repeat them. You claimed to have scientific observations that support target food. I welcomed that news and am still waiting for you to present the evidence gathered during those observations.

Previously posted.
So you have no scientific observations and you really were just going to post another diet.
classic


Either way, target food can exist if it followed the consumer.
Not when your golden rule is applied. It fails every time.


It doesn't matter, you also have problems with existing well established terms, like natural.
Nope just your incorrect use of it based on what you claim is a definition you refuse to post whilst refusing to accept any other.

You combined two separate posts again. Confirms it is a dishonest tactic you employ to confuse and make checking back difficult. You are shamelessly dishonest.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You have never provided anything that credibily supports evolution, many others have however provided information that proves evolution to be false.
I as many others have spoon fed you with evidence, examples and explanations which you treat with ignorant disregard and dismiss showing no signs of reading. After over a year you misrepresent what evolution describes as in the case of the hippo. When I correct you you do not even show any sign of having read what I gifted you and repeat the same ignorance in the following sentence making your comment above just another lie in a long line of lies

Now let's look at what you have provided. A fantasy you have never provided supporting evidence for. Even on this page your promise of scientific observations turns out to be just another diet list.

You argue against your own rules. Are trying to backtrack on the claims you made and attempt to steer the discussion away from target food where you have been shown to be 100% wrong to the house sparrow where you were shown 100% wrong.

To sum up. When the golden rule is applied to your claims target food always fails. Target food disproven.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If they are not random then their has to be purpose behind them.
Over a year and that is the best you can reply with. Small changes, selected by the environment over time.


Well is it unfounded , or do you not know what I'm referring to?
How could anyone know what your garbled nonsense was referring too then or now.


You mean just like how you refuse to believe in the definition of Natural.
No. Stereo is correct. Posting a definition does not mean you understand it. You demonstrate you don’t. Natural is just one of many.


I see, and Pye, and Von daniken and Sitchen all just happen to be wrong too huh
You have not even learned that I have no interest in what the above have to say.


No what you try to post claims it can't exist, only because you think you can make up your own rules, as usual.
That is precisely why I chose YOUR RULES to test YOUR CLAIMS against. If you attack what I am showing you then you attack your own silly fantasy.

If you want to now admit publically that your rules are wrong and your claims false be my guest. If not, no matter. The result is the same.


If your just so sure I'm wrong, then you would have no problem proving me wrong, where is it, prove me wrong.
See the previous pages. Job done with your help. Thanks



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





The above rambling proves you are trying to obscure your lack of evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
In other words, you do not understand how evolution actually works, and your only response is to repeat your previous assertion. What is your reasoning here, can you explain it?
Your lack of answer tells me I'm right.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





And that is how you reply to a post showing how you have again misread what I posted to avoid the question. Incredible.
You frequently take things out of context.




Not according to your golden rule.
My golden rule never claimed the relationship for Target Food was between planet and consumer. But I have noticed how you keep pressing the issue and ignoring my facts to the point, it tells me that I have won this portion of the debate because you are unable to do anything else other than be dishonest.




Let’s be clear as you seem to be unable to grasp this. You are talking about 'TARGET FOOD' which you classify differently than food. Apply your golden rule and target food fails.
No it doesn't, again thats just you being dishonest.




The silly thing here is you are arguing against yourself. If your golden rule is false then all you have claimed, all the rules you have made up around target food are false. Ergo Target food is false.
Your going to have to try a little bit harder to disprove target food, and it would help if you started out by being honest. I never claimed that target food was a relationship between consumer and planet, what I claimed was that the term natural was listed to say that mans involvement in anything is unnatural, that doesn't however mean that man can't possibly have target food. Thats just you trying to be dishonest again and trying to move the goal posts to fit your fantasy.




Like I wrote. You have no proof for your accusation and no moral compass. You are the only one displaying dishonesty here.
You are the only one here being dishonest, claiming that Target Food can't exist on earth, I never claimed that, but there you go with your assumptions again.




I refer you to my answer. Route Closed
Prove it. You made the claim, now you can prove it.




Your claim has already been tested against your rules and failed. Please refer to that test on previous pages of this thread to avoid repetition
Your just being dishonest, because there is no other way for you to get the edge against Target Food. It gives me comfort to know that you can't win the debate in an honest way.




So you have no scientific observations and you really were just going to post another diet. classic
The observations will not be repeated again, Road closed.




Not when your golden rule is applied. It fails every time.
The rule never applied to the planet, you confusing the term natural with it.




Nope just your incorrect use of it based on what you claim is a definition you refuse to post whilst refusing to accept any other.

You combined two separate posts again. Confirms it is a dishonest tactic you employ to confuse and make checking back difficult. You are shamelessly dishonest.
Your the only one complaining, prove it.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I as many others have spoon fed you with evidence, examples and explanations which you treat with ignorant disregard and dismiss showing no signs of reading. After over a year you misrepresent what evolution describes as in the case of the hippo. When I correct you you do not even show any sign of having read what I gifted you and repeat the same ignorance in the following sentence making you comment above just another lie in a long line of lies

Now let's look at what you have provided. A fantasy you have never provided supporting evidence for. Even on this page your promise of scientific observations turns out to be just another diet list.

You argue against your own rules. Are trying to backtrack on the claims you made and attempt to steer the discussion away from target food where you have been shown to be 100% wrong to the house sparrow where you were shown 100% wrong.

To sum up. When the golden rule is applied to your claims target food always fails. Target food disproven
That would be because I don't care about you evidence, your evidence is weak and at best a guess. I'm more interested in proof, something that tells me its real, not a fantasy.

I was never wrong about the sparrow, his relationship is STILL with the house, not the humans. The fact is if the humans moved out, the sparrow would not follow. Keep lying. Your dishonesty only tells me that the only way you can win a debate is to lie and make things up. At least be a man about it and try to be honest.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





The above rambling proves you are trying to obscure your lack of evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
In other words, you do not understand how evolution actually works, and your only response is to repeat your previous assertion. What is your reasoning here, can you explain it?
Your lack of answer tells me I'm right.

Or could it be he has not answered yet. His sig shows he left after he posted. I feel you claim victory a little too soon.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You frequently take things out of context.
And that is how you reply a second time to a post showing how you have again misread what I posted to avoid the question. Incredible.


My golden rule never claimed the relationship for Target Food was between planet and consumer. But I have noticed how you keep pressing the issue and ignoring my facts to the point, it tells me that I have won this portion of the debate because you are unable to do anything else other than be dishonest.
Your golden rule. You made the rule. There can be no processes that are not natural and/or caused by means that are not natural.

You claimed that rule to be a fact. If by claiming a win you mean your rules when tested against your claims show target food fails then yes, you won. You proved target food false


Let’s be clear as you seem to be unable to grasp this. You are talking about 'TARGET FOOD' which you classify differently than food. Apply your golden rule and target food fails.

No it doesn't, again thats just you being dishonest.
I'm afraid it does. I refer you back to the previous pages where I test your rules against your claims. You’re in a pickle for sure.


what I claimed was that the term natural was listed to say that mans involvement in anything is unnatural, that doesn't however mean that man can't possibly have target food.
Your recent revelation that ALL organic life was not from here apart from maybe bacteria shows ALL organic life’s involvement in anything is unnatural, not just mans. Now when you apply your golden rule the result is always the same. Target food fails.


Thats just you trying to be dishonest again and trying to move the goal posts to fit your fantasy.
They are your goalposts. The fantasy is yours.


You are the only one here being dishonest, claiming that Target Food can't exist on earth, I never claimed that, but there you go with your assumptions again.
Unfortunately for you when you admitted that no organic life was from here not just man, your fantasy target food failed. No organic life on this planet is natural. No actions it takes are natural. Organic life is both food and consumer. Apply your golden rule and target food fails every time.


So you have no scientific observations and you really were just going to post another diet. classic

The observations will not be repeated again, Road closed.
That’s fine because if you have nothing new to offer the road for target food really is closed.



The rule never applied to the planet, you confusing the term natural with it.
I am not applying it to the planet. I am applying it to the organic life that your rules say is not natural.

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



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.


I will say this again as well as tell you and anyone else that....

.....THERE IS A 100% PROVEN FACT THAT HUMANS ARE GENETICALLY CONNECTED TO EVERY SPECIES ON THE PLANET THAT WE HAVE CROSS REFERENCED THEIR GENOMES TO OURS.

This is a FACT. It is a WELL KNOWN FACT.

Not only do we have the fossil records...although not totally complete...but more than complete enough to make such an assumption bases on such an EXTREME level of probability.

The Fossil records ALONE would be more than enough proof but we also have the proof in all the species DNA and complete mapped GENOMES. This PROOF is irrefutable.

All Species Genomes that we have mapped all contain one specific VIRAL DNA ENCODING within all Genomes and Including OURS!

Because of this it is IMPOSSIBLE that there can be any other FACT than we all EVOLVED from a COMMON ANCESTOR. This is not my Belief based on what I think or Feel. It is a FACT based on OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENTATION, DOCUMATION and PRACTICLE APPLICATION....called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD

IT IS A FACT....AS WELL AS A TRUTH.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That would be because I don't care about you evidence, your evidence is weak and at best a guess.
Confirming what I wrote:


I as many others have spoon fed you with evidence, examples and explanations which you treat with ignorant disregard and dismiss showing no signs of reading.
Thank you for confirming this.


I'm more interested in proof, something that tells me its real, not a fantasy.
Your previous reply shows that to be a very suspect remark. Your denial of target food failing every time your claims are tested against your rules further illustrates you do not want proof of anything. You want capitulation. Wrong site. Wrong forum.

You had your response to your attempt to steer the topic away from the failed target food.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Even science today works under the notion that all things happen for a reason. This crock about random things happening with evolution are completly false, and unsubstantiated.

You often confuse intent with reason. You also do not understand the meaning of evolution, let alone evolution theory. Random processes as an underlying mechanism is robust enough that it is used in computer algorithms. Genetic algorithms work well and are employed in engineering, chemistry, and other areas. Just because you cannot understand the material has no bearing on other people.


Colin provided me with a transitional that actually did have some inbetween transitions, of course we will never know if they are real or made up, and even if they are real we still have no proof of relation.

Nothing but useless musings. Come back when you have something to say.

Posting a definition does not mean you understand it. Your posts reveal you do not. You clearly do not understand the meanings of hypothesis, scientific theory, evolution, and many other terms.


I took mine long before you took yours, but it appears that you have overlooked some important things they stated, like there is no proof that man evolved from apes, and there is no proof that a species can change into another species. Those claims ARE NOT in a biology book and in fact if you read them correctly you will find that they do suggest it, without reason or proof.

Your poor writing and poor spelling and misuse of words and lack of understanding of basic terms suggests otherwise. Take a basic course in biology when you get to high school and learn.


The bible cant be found in the fiction section, just goes to show you how off you are.

Pointless commentary. The bible is full of fiction from exodus to genesis to the flood to the mention of imaginary places like Sodom and Gomorrah.


One day when you grow up, you will also see how many times you have jumped to conclusions to make your faith work. Try you faith without assumptions and see how it goes.

No faith involved on my part. Your response here is laughable.


You do, you assume that guessing processes become fact.

Take a basic course when you get to high school and learn the meaning of fact.


You haven't posted anything, why don't you post your proof.

Reread the thread and see the evidence.


Thats pretty brilliant of you considering your claiming that I never posted the process of the theory of Target Food.

Not posted in this thread.


And still you can't explian why your correct and everyone else is wrong.

Straw man argument from desperation.


If you used common sense for once you might be able to make some progress..

Wiki never tested the skull, Pye did.
Wiki never wrote an article about the skull, Pye did, and wiki modified it based on their own understanding.
Wiki never paid to have the skull tested, Pye did.
Wiki never worked with the labs about the skull, Pye did.

So you see, your choice in understanding is completly wrong, and then you can't understand why your being told that your wrong, its obvious that you don't use any common sense when it comes to where you get your information from, either that or your only content with articles that fit your fantasy.

Wikipedia article contains two links to lab reports that show Pye wrong. Read the reports and learn.


Do you have some proof that its baloney, or is it just because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

Sitchin and Pye and VonDaniken are liars. Learn something for a change.

If you want something debunked then point out one of their stupid lies and I can point you to the reason it is a lie. Frankly, I don't believe you know anything about their claims.


Exactly, fusing doesn't happen outside of a lab.

Please provide proof of this claim. We all know you can't since it is wrong. Go ahead show us proof.


Then you need to jump up and take action, and let every crime lab and paternity outfit know that the proof they rely on through DNA for crimes and paternity is completly false as DNA has the ability to be changed through evolution.

When you get to high school take a basic course in biology. This is a foolish claims since evolution affects a species not an individual. Despite being told that many times you continue to post nonsense statements such as that. All of those silly emoticons are just laughing at you.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





How does you infecting another site with your tired and failed fantasy show target food fantasy has been observed by other people? You are really funny
Because to many people are involved in the posting of various diets of all species. Those diets all confirm the patterns I have observed in all of them, and those patterns confirm Target Food exists.




You should be able to find your answer in your clear historical document. If you have to concoct a fantasy to explain it you may even consider it may just be a story.

The rest of your post consists of you playing the repeat game version of solitaire
Oh ya, and the bible agrees, what a coincidence huh?
I see so because you post your nonsense on another site and people might see it so they are observing target food in action. Jeeze that's weak even for you.

You say the bible agrees but what I see is you have used your usual level of reading and made a fantasy around what you think you read.

For the bible to be 'a clear historical document' that is what it must be, clear. You even maintain that the god the bible is based on is an imposter. That what it say's about adam and eve is wrong and only you can understand it and dont even need knowledge of ancient Hebrew to understand better than scholars that spend a life time of study.
edit on 2-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





The above rambling proves you are trying to obscure your lack of evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
In other words, you do not understand how evolution actually works, and your only response is to repeat your previous assertion. What is your reasoning here, can you explain it?
Your lack of answer tells me I'm right.



You ignore answers because it proves you wrong, besides the answers have been given to you ad nauseam.
It's not my fault you choose to remain ignorant.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You honeslty believe that man can create these things in a lab, but that evolution has all of the intelligence and ability in the world to make these things happen, total nonsense.

Evolution is not intelligent or guided. That appears to be impossible for you to learn. Man often cannot replicate what happens in nature. Just because we can figure out how to replicate a process or even create a process that does not happen in nature has no bearing on natural events.


People could find an association between bacteria and dinosaurs, evolutionists would not stop there. There is no proof of relation between any species, there is only assumption that they are related, DNA and fossils CANT prove relation. And from what your saying that DNA can change, DNA can't prove relation either as a result.

Just because you are unable to learn about these matters has no bearing on the ability of other people to understand these matters. Your posts are appeals based on personal ignorance.


Well a lot of people have claimed that its false, but there hasn't been anything tangible to prove it wrong. And their wont be because Target Food is real and solid as a rock.

Overwhelming amount of evidence and proof already posted in thread.


Your opinion is greatly appreciated, but unfortunatly they don't disprove a theory.

Evidence and proof, not opinion, already posted in thread showing that TF is wrong.


False, the eating habbits and patterns I have observed, have also been observed by other people as well. As an example...

That's just your drivel posted in another place.

Deer experiment with food. Evidence already posted in this thread.


Prove it.

Take a course in biology when you get to high school.


Not really, the bible is littered with punishments, so its not hard to figure out.

Irrelevant commentary.


There are no acceptable claims to how the grand canyon was formed.

Take a basic course in geology and learn. This is another appeal from personal ignorance.


If that is the reasoning you use to understnad things, its a no wonder you believe in evolution. There is a HELL of a lot more to the skull than just that, but you will have to visit his website to learn about the pelthora of things that don't add up to it being human. The additional tests were ordered because they would be able to not only tell him what the skull is, but also what it is not. The final tests are so clear that there is no way the skull is human.

Your conclusion is without merit. There is zero evidence that the skull is anything other than human. The reports state that. Pye is a stunning example of his own book title "Everything You Know is Wrong". Yes is wrong is almost every way. One of his dumbest ideas is that there are 4 groups of hominids: bigfoot, yetis, agogwes and almas. So when this wacko Pye was unable to fit this skull into his fantasy he invented a new category. Pye went from wacko to nutcase on this one. When the reports showed him wrong he did the only thing a wacko could do: he ignored the results.


I take it your one of these people that believes that there is no other life out there, and we are it, and we know everything, and we can do everything, and there is nothing else left.

Straw man argument from someone with nothing to say.


Which just goes to show you how wrong you are, the first person of many that I heard this from was a church goer.

Irrelevant commentary.


Prove it, ya, why don't you do that.

Already posted in thread.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats right, but it does make mention of them all of a sudden having old memories that wouldnt be possible unless they had a prior history, which isn't possible because they were just created.

Prove it.

Evidence already posted in thread.


And you don't have to, which is obviously where you think its false, and missed the point.

TF proved false many times in this thread.


Prove it, don't refute it, prove it wrong.

Already done.


Prove it.

Already posted.


There is nothing non sensicle about an observed event.

Your comment was nonsensical.


First you made the claim I never posted proof of Target Food, now your claiming I can't spell or write, so what have I been spelling and writting about all this time?

As I stated before your writing is poor and clumsy. You misspelled writing and you're. You misuse words. That is what makes your posts difficult to respond to.


Biology in high school does not prove to us that man evolved from apes, much less that anything can change into another species.

When you get to high school take a biology course so you can learn the meaning of the words you do not understand such as evolution, and theory and hypothesis. That will be a building block for you.


So let me get this straight, you think that evolution can Change our DNA, devise complex changes like fusing that is only found in a lab, Cause changes that allow a species to eventually become another species, and eventually make new species, but its not intelligent and its not a creator

Evolution is the observed change in the genetics of a population. Evolution is not changing the DNA. Evolution is the observed change. Someday I expect you to learn that.


You will never run out of dots.

Pointless commentary.


Evolution is not tested, we haven't been testing it for millions of years to prove that man can originate from apes.

Another appeal from personal ignorance.


There is more reliable information in Target Food then there is evolution.

Proof that you are wrong already posted in thread.


Maybe its you with the proor skills.

Pointless commentary, also unintelligible.


Still there is proof of great floods all over this planet.

No proof of a global flood, only local floods.
edit on 2-2-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You have never provided anything that credibily supports evolution, many others have however provided information that proves evolution to be false.

Nothing has been posted in this thread that shows science against evolution. Only 1 poster offered science evidence.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It hasn't been relivent to anything I have been talking about.
Besides, what is deadline for evolving. Do you have to live with another to be part of the population, what if you live close by but keep to yourself. Such a crock. /quote]
Once again tooth shows all of us that they have zero understanding of the word evolution as used in science.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If they are not random then their has to be purpose behind them.

Another appeal from personal ignorance.


I see, and Pye, and Von daniken and Sitchen all just happen to be wrong too huh

Finally you posted something that is correct. Not only are they wrong, but they are telling lies to make money.


No what you try to post claims it can't exist, only because you think you can make up your own rules, as usual.

Overwhelming evidence against the fantasy of TF already posted in thread.


If your just so sure I'm wrong, then you would have no problem proving me wrong, where is it, prove me wrong.

Already posted in thread.
edit on 2-2-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join