Science against evolution

page: 34
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



My understanding is clear, everything I have been directed to about evolution clearly states that it is a fantasy.

You're understanding is as muddle as your often incomprehensible writing. Every post shows you have no idea what evolution means. The way you use the term evolution is a fantasy, not the way it is used in science.


A hypothesis is an educated guess based on what information is available at the time, this by no means tells you that its fact. A scientific fact, is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed. No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, so your lying, and trying to dumb down other people. Stick to making jokes, your good at that.

Just because you have not read the evidence posted several different times in this thread has no bearing on the question of evolution and the emergence of new species. Your attitude is typical of the uneducated people I meet at creationist lectures, both off and on the stage. Keep repeating your lies and keep that mind closed - it suits you. When you get to high school take a course in biology and learn.


I took basic biology in high school when you were in diapers, and I passed. There was nothing that proved that a species can change into another species, I think your looking in the fiction section.

An obvious falsehood.


What your really saying is that because they are not visible today, just like evolution, your not going to believe in them. Never mind that they could have existed at one time, and most of the evidence can be washed away with time. Basically your telling me that if you can't touch it and see it, its not real, and that doesn't work in the supernatural. Your way off.

Evolution is visible today. Your wrong. The bible is full of fiction. The archaeology, geology, and other sciences show that genesis is false, exodus never happened, the flood never happened. Sodom and Gomorrah are fantasies as well. There are all sorts of lame excuses about why the bible does not match reality. There isn't a creationist lecturer that does not proclaim that they aren't afraid to invoke magic t cover up the failings of the bible.


No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, therefore, you have a faith, you believe it can happen with no proof.

Evidence already posted.


A fact is just something that is used as evidence, I'm more interested in proof, and you should be too. You need to lean away from the guessing and the assumptions and come over to the real world.

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


Did you have anything that was convincing?

Evidence already posted.


The theory of target food has been posted several times ON THIS THREAD.

Anything posted was not scientific. The thread is science against evolution.


And still you don't answer.

No need to answer straw man arguments.


Of course I do.

Point out anything you wanted debunked and we'll shatter it like that stupidity from Pye.


Aside from propagation there is nothing in the wild that can change our DNA and I challenge anyone to prove this wrong.

False. Take a basic course in biology when you get to high school and learn.


Look at the fantasy you believe in, you actually think that our DNA can change in the wild, with no proof.

An appeal from personal ignorance - again!




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



First of all no one ever claimed that I'm the only one that believes this, that was your assumption. You need to close your assumption generator when dealing with me, it takes up a lot of our time.

Anyone else posting that trash in this thread? Nope.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I never read anything that proved this to be a fact, do you have something other than opinion?

That reveals you complete ignorance of the subject matter. Thanks for repeating to all that you understanding nothing about evolution.


Wrong, man can frequently replicate what happens in nature, in fact that only thing I'm aware of that we can't replicate is honey.

Another completely out of touch statement.
1. We can't make stars
2. We can't grow accelerate particles as fast as cosmic rays
3. We can't replicate many complex organic molecules
4. We can't make most nanoscale structures
5. We can't create artificial intelligence

PS People can make honey. Here is a recipe
www.lformula.com...


Quite, the opposite, I learned from others here on ATS about evolution, and am convinced after the fact that evolution is fantasy.

You make it clear in every post that you have no idea what evolution is about.


The only things I have been presented with is that food evolves with the rest of us, so there is no explanation. Evolution is not an explanation of the aleded events, its an excuse.

Evolution is the observed change. Overwhelming evidence posted.


Well then you failed becasue I'm still here, post that proof.

Did that.


Their experimentation still lands them in their food catagory, so you are wrong and I have allready explained this in the past.

False.

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


Your ignorant, there is something like 57 elements that prove that skull to not be human. It has more brain mass, but not in defect, no iniot, shallow eye sockets that couldn't possibly house OUR eyes. A larger frontal lobe, different neck axis, a smaller mouth, 5 adult teeth wating to come down with existing adult teeth, a smaller bite radius, Skull is more that of enamal then bone, they had a problem cutting it in the lab and had to use the strongest acid possible.

That skull is NOT human.

The are liars like Pye that claim the skull is non-human. There are also fools that fall for the lies of Pye. The skull is a typical skull of a child that died from a well known disease fatal to children.


The first results were proven to be false by the second lab test, but you would know that if you read the notes on the tests.

False. Both reports show the skull to be human.


I'm going to take your strawman comment that I'm correct.

Learn what a straw man argument is. They probably teach that in high school along with biology.


Its only irrelevant when it once again shows that your right and everyon else is wrong.

The whine used by those with nothing to say.


Be a man and post your proof. Whats the matter, don't you have any?

Evidence already posted.
edit on 3-2-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your evidence is false, can you post something credible.

Evidence already posted. If you want to refute something please tell us what specific issues you are refuting.


There is nothing nonsensicle about my comment.

Clumsy and incomplete sentences, misuse of words, horrible spelling, and other matters lead to incomprehensible and nonsensical statements. Please fix the mistakes and resubmit.


When you make it through high school, I hope you learn that anything that is responsible for creating over a billion species is a CREATOR.

You expect me to fall for such a ridiculous assumption? Oh, please!


Some of those changes are accounted for, as in the case of ADHD, so your fantasy is false.

Unrelated gibberish and pointless.


You connected dots showing that speciation means a species is changing, but there is no proof, but you connected the dots anyhow. You connected the dots showing that a species has the ability to change into another species again with no proof, but again you connected the dots.

Evidence already posted in thread.


Global, local, same thing, the water has to move somewhere.

Since a global inundation cannot drain to any place that means that it did not happen. Local floods can drain to other areas. Are you beginning to understand the ludicrous nature of the flood fairy tale?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There isn't anything scientific about willing a theory into existance.

True. That is why TF is lame and evolution is not. Evolution is a fact and evolution theory explains that fact.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.

Yep, and that is true.
It’s a rule you made up so it must be


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

You have no proof of the aleged processes, so your guessing.
Nope. I am applying your rules to your claims


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.

I'm not in any pickle, any two non native species can still be native to each other.
Not according to when your claims are tested against your golden rule. I'm afraid they fail every time


It fails from being natural to earth, but not to the other species. The relationship is between the consumer and the food not the consumer and the planet.
Nope sorry. The golden rule says no


You frequently move the goal posts, see how dishonest you are.
Again you make an accusation you do not provide the proof for. You have no moral compass. The goalposts are yours, the fantasy is yours and if there are any lies and dishonesty to answer for they are yours too.


I find it hard to believe that it took you a complete year to realize that no life is native to earth, however that doesn't mean they can't be native to each other.
I find it hard to believe that you maintained only man was not from here and only man was not natural when you claim now that you knew all along that you believe nothing is from here. Just shows how dishonest you are and how shamelessly you admit that lie you maintained for over a year. You have no moral compass.

However since now you have. Your target food claims fail every time they are tested against your golden rule


Why would I close a threat that proves Evolution wrong.
Have I mentioned you are a very delusional person



Why would I ignore the fact that it proves intelligence must have been present to program the instinct for food. Target Food is very strong, and upstanding.
Because it does not. What your answer shows is you made a fantasy to fit your preconceived idea. It fails when applied to your golden rule it fails every time


It might seem like a big threat to you, which is why you wish the subject would be closed, but thats not going to happen.
Only in you deluded head does target food threaten anything. It fails when applied to your golden rule every time.


I am not applying it to the planet. I am applying it to the organic life that your rules say is not natural.

Not natural to earth, but they can be natual to other species.
Nope. It fails when applied to your golden rule every time. Explanation given too many times already. I refer you to them



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
First of all no one ever claimed that I'm the only one that believes this, that was your assumption. You need to close your assumption generator when dealing with me, it takes up a lot of our time.

How does that nonsense reply answer my points?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
There still is nothing showing any science against evolution.

Still dealing with people unwilling to learn. Happens all of the time. There is always hope that they will invest the time to understand some basic ideas. Maybe they will, but more likely not. It's that close mindedness that is hard to break.

I once saw an hilarious book that covered a topic I thought about beforehand. Why didn't all of the animals on the ark die of ammonia poisoning or CO2 suffocation? All of that manure for over 300 days and the impossibility of the few humans in the fairy tale being able to shovel it out fast enough to avoid death. This book had these plans for a ventilation system they claimed would keep the ark free of the poisonous fumes of decay. The problem was that it took a very large part of the craft requiring a significant rescaling of the ark. I would have thought that the author would have invoked magic to keep things happy on board the ark. A little fairy dust here and there to keep the place habitable.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Im still waiting for the science against evolution as well.

I wish Itsthetooth would present some evidence and stay on topic.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by stereologist
 


Im still waiting for the science against evolution as well.

I wish Itsthetooth would present some evidence and stay on topic.


That's the problem, the tooth group does not know what evolution is, the scientific method, evidence, or anything about the OP.

It is clear they are spamming the thread with nonsense.

The fact ATS allows this is beyond me, expect more spam in 3.2.1. >>>>



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





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.
So I was right, everyone else is wrong and you are correct.




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
OMG stating that Target Food is wrong is not the same as proving it wrong. Besides, you claimed I never posted the theory on here, so how could you possibly prove something wrong when you don't even know what the theory is, or are you lying?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Posting some idea you came up with isnt science against evolution.

Please stay on topic and provide us with the science against evolution.
edit on 3-2-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Like I have already stated three times now, the reasoning behind my posts is to hopfully find someone that can disprove Target Food.

I won't however simply accept simple things like its false, or fake, or can't be proven. Someone somewhere has to be able to prove it false, and they should be able to do so without cheating and wihtout moving the goal posts.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





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
Evolution is not used in science, only adaptation. Granted some may claim that they use it, but they are using unproven information in science. There is no proof, as example that all changes are part of this large organazation known as evolution. It's only assumed.

Once again, the ADHD genes, that keep popping up and slapping you in the face, are at it again. How can you make claims that all changes are evolution when there is no proof, and now we have proof that they aren't.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist
 


Like I have already stated three times now, the reasoning behind my posts is to hopfully find someone that can disprove Target Food.

I won't however simply accept simple things like its false, or fake, or can't be proven. Someone somewhere has to be able to prove it false, and they should be able to do so without cheating and wihtout moving the goal posts.

It seems you won’t even accept your own rules, even you golden rule that shows target food fails every time it is tested against your rules.

You keep chanting 'the goalposts have been moved' but they were set in place by you. I think your whining means you would love to change those rules but you’re too late.

Now if you have nothing new to offer. Target food is dead. It died pages ago when you admitted your yearlong lie.

Target food fails every time it is tested against your golden rule.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I know enough about evolution to know that its fantasy.
I know enough to know that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.
I know enough to know that there is no proof that we share a common ancestor with apes.
I know enough to know that speciation is assumed from groups of species no longer breeding with the original group, which isn't proof.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


That rule applied to the species and planet relationship not the species and food relationship.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is tons of science against evolution.

As an example The observation made with several diets, proves there is intelligence behind the programming of each species. There is simply no way that a species could know about an existing food without someone having to share it with them. Evolution fails at explaining why species have a direction when it comes to food. They always have a Target in mind, and their patterns prove this.

Species not only know what they are suppose to be eating, but they also know what they are not suppose to be eating. I use the example of them never experimenting with dirt, rocks and poo to figure out which one they like more. The don't even try them, not to be confused with starving species.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Target Food is NOT an idea, its an observed event, revealing patterns and instinct within EVERY species.

Every species has a goal as to what food they are searching for. The patterns are observed in EVERY species, not just one or two.

Pick three diets and I will tell you what phase they are in for Target Food. It's that simple.

Target Food is observed in Abalone, which alone proves that a species CAN have one food and one food only. There are claims this is false, but I haven't seen any proof.

When Target Food is not available, for whatever reason, the species goes into 3 phases of hunger.

Phase one is where they are searching for target food but have to settle for everything in that food group as its not available. Phase 2 is where they might pick up an additional food group, as in the example of the squirrel in the off season. Phase 3 is eating rocks, dirt, and poo, total starvation.

None of which should be confused with domesticated animals as we predict what they will eat.

A good example of that not working out is a dogs diet. We feed him dog food, and of course its not his target food, so he starts going through the trash from time to time. They frequently do this even though they still have food in their dish, its because they are searching for Target Food.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


That rule applied to the species and planet relationship not the species and food relationship.
It does not matter where the golden rule is applied sunshine. When your claims are tested against your golden rule target food fails every time.

If you still disagree I suggest you take it up with the guy who made those rules up. Ooooops! that would be you. In that case you have nowhere to go.

Please explain what 'the food' is as I have explained many times now ALL organic life is both food and consumer whereas you seem to be inferring it is something else.

edit on 3-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join