Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

reply to post by stereologist


Sterologist - I've read many of your posts against Tooth, across multiple threads.

Know that you are correct.

reply to post by stereologist

That coming from someone that have never posted a fact in any thread.

I posted that you frequently lie, thats a fact.

A non sequitur. Deer experiment with food means they experiment with potential foods off of their diet regardless of abundance.

Is this an observation you made yourself, or did you read this somewhere, and what exactly was observed.

Another shoddy attempt at pretending I posted something other than I did post.

You still fell over from not paying attention.

Male and female mosquitoes have different DIETS. You are wrong. In the past you admitted you were wrong and called it an exception to the rule.

And thats the best you have? Seriously it doesn't diss prove target food. There is way to much supporting it.

Actually you have used the word specie. If you want to further make a shambles with your Tooth's Folly change it to unit and then it will be even meaningless as to the purpose you originally claimed.

I'm sorry but I don't remember ever saying that all male and female species eat the same thing.

reply to post by Confusion42

Ok, Tooth, usually I just lurk around. I've read just about every single post you have made, and am well aware of "tooth's folly" (cough your theory of target food and the like that has been proven wrong).

OVER 1,000 PAGES OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE SYSTEMATICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY DIS-PROVING YOUR THEORY. HOW MUCH PROOF AGAINST YOUR THEORY DO YOU NEED?

1,000 PAGES (+) AND YOUR ONLY REPLY (EXCEPT FOR LIES) IS "PROOF THAT TARGET FOOD IS WRONG."

1,000+ PAGES.

MODS, WHY DO YOU LET THIS JOKER CONTINUE TO PROMOTE A THEORY THAT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN???

Do you seriously think I would be talking to people about doing a book on Target Food if it has failed like you think it has? Hell no. Target Food has not failed, it has prevailed. No one has proven the theory wrong, and the best part is that the theory proves intelligence was present for the creation of all life, plain and simple.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

Divide and conquer, obviously...

and that is exactly what shouldn't happen, no matter point of view you hold, surely there is a middle ground.
Sensible and real.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I posted that you frequently lie, thats a fact.

It is a fact that you constantly tell lies. You are correct that is a fact.

Is this an observation you made yourself, or did you read this somewhere, and what exactly was observed.

That is a common observation. I have made that observation as have many people I know.

You still fell over from not paying attention.

Gibberish.

And thats the best you have? Seriously it doesn't diss prove target food. There is way to much supporting it.

Then you need to provide some evidence which you have not done.

I'm sorry but I don't remember ever saying that all male and female species eat the same thing.

You have repeatedly stated that all members of a specie eat the same food. NOt true of mosquitoes or bears. These are 2 different ways in which your claims are proved wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Do you seriously think I would be talking to people about doing a book on Target Food if it has failed like you think it has? Hell no. Target Food has not failed, it has prevailed. No one has proven the theory wrong, and the best part is that the theory proves intelligence was present for the creation of all life, plain and simple.

Your folly is only a theory in the sense of a wild eyed unsubstantiated guess that has been proven false. Your TF, aka Tooth's Folly, is not like a theory in science. There are no facts supporting Tooth's Folly. There are many facts showing your folly to be wrong. TF certainly does not demonstrate or prove anything since it is demonstrably false.

reply to post by stereologist

It is a fact that you constantly tell lies. You are correct that is a fact.

The only one lying on here is you.

That is a common observation. I have made that observation as have many people I know.

Well thats where you failed yourself, right there. You trusted yourself to self debate on an observation, but we can tell from past history that you are far from being a scientist. For christ sakes, you believe in evolution, no real science there.

Then you need to provide some evidence which you have not done.

All of the proven facts about Target Food have already been provided.

You have repeatedly stated that all members of a specie eat the same food. NOt true of mosquitoes or bears. These are 2 different ways in which your claims are proved wrong.

But again, I never claimed that both male and female species always eat the same thing. What I said was all units of a species eat the same food. IE male units and female units. It doesn't matter, your trying to make a false claim about two species which doesn't account for all species. Again your wrong. Target food is about all species not just mosquitoes and bears.

And reminde me again, what was your folly about the bear?

And how did you find this information out, did you read about it, did you observe it yourself, how?

Your folly is only a theory in the sense of a wild eyed unsubstantiated guess that has been proven false. Your TF, aka Tooth's Folly, is not like a theory in science. There are no facts supporting Tooth's Folly. There are many facts showing your folly to be wrong. TF certainly does not demonstrate or prove anything since it is demonstrably false.

I don't have a folly. Target Food is a well observed event. It is based on ALL diets not just mosquitoes and bears.

Tedious troll is tedious.....

Literally everything TF posts is a lie or a twisted version of the truth.

Such behaviour is surely detrimental to this forum

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well thats where you failed yourself, right there. You trusted yourself to self debate on an observation, but we can tell from past history that you are far from being a scientist. For christ sakes, you believe in evolution, no real science there.

I really don't think you need to remind us how clueless you are about evolution. We get it. We get it.

All of the proven facts about Target Food have already been provided.

Nothing provided yet. Been waiting.

But again, I never claimed that both male and female species always eat the same thing. What I said was all units of a species eat the same food. IE male units and female units. It doesn't matter, your trying to make a false claim about two species which doesn't account for all species. Again your wrong. Target food is about all species not just mosquitoes and bears.

And reminde me again, what was your folly about the bear?

And how did you find this information out, did you read about it, did you observe it yourself, how?

You called mosquitoes the exception to the rule. You stated the same about bear.

How many exceptions do you have for your Tooth's Folly? You denied that animals eat dirt and rocks. They do. You denied that animals eat poop. They do. Tooth's Folly appears to be a well disproven notion that was formulated on an extremely limited knowledge of living organisms and their feeding habits.

I don't have a folly. Target Food is a well observed event. It is based on ALL diets not just mosquitoes and bears.

Your folly has been disproven countless times because it is a false idea. It is wrong. It does not work. It is a failure.

reply to post by stereologist

I really don't think you need to remind us how clueless you are about evolution. We get it. We get it.

You do realize that not a single person has ever proven that anything is part of the process known as evolution, its all made up in the authors mind.

You have a faith, its something you believe in, without proof. There is no proof that I share a common ancestor with apes, its your belief. There is no proof that a species can change into another species, its all in your mind, it is your faith.

Nothing provided yet. Been waiting.

I'm sure your ignorance tells you that nothing has been provided, but you sure have been working hard at arguing with me over nothing then.

You called mosquitoes the exception to the rule. You stated the same about bear.

How many exceptions do you have for your Tooth's Folly? You denied that animals eat dirt and rocks. They do. You denied that animals eat poop. They do. Tooth's Folly appears to be a well disproven notion that was formulated on an extremely limited knowledge of living organisms and their feeding habits.

As I have explained like in the example of the rabbit, hes actually eating unprocessed food, there is a big difference between that and eating poop.

Aside, you obviously missed the bulk of my statement, what I was trying to say is that its not a typical part of their diet, but its just another example of how you have to move the goal posts because you can't argue fairly.

Your folly has been disproven countless times because it is a false idea. It is wrong. It does not work. It is a failure

I have never shared it with you, at least according to you, so how would you know?

reply to post by itsthetooth

You do realize that not a single person has ever proven that anything is part of the process known as evolution, its all made up in the authors mind.

You have a faith, its something you believe in, without proof. There is no proof that I share a common ancestor with apes, its your belief. There is no proof that a species can change into another species, its all in your mind, it is your faith.

Again you argue from a position of ignorance.

I'm sure your ignorance tells you that nothing has been provided, but you sure have been working hard at arguing with me over nothing then.

Please stop stalling and provide some evidence.

As I have explained like in the example of the rabbit, hes actually eating unprocessed food, there is a big difference between that and eating poop.

Aside, you obviously missed the bulk of my statement, what I was trying to say is that its not a typical part of their diet, but its just another example of how you have to move the goal posts because you can't argue fairly.

It's poop. It has passed through the GI tract of the rabbit. You can continue to look foolish by not calling it what it is but that just makes you look even more foolish (if that is possible).

Rabbits eat their poop from an early age and continue to do it throughout their lives., It is a big partof their diet.

I have never shared it with you, at least according to you, so how would you know?

So now your excuse at the failure of Tooth's Folly is that you have not shared it? No wonder it is known as Tooth's Folly.

reply to post by stereologist

Again you argue from a position of ignorance.

And everytime you say that without proving me wrong, it just proves that I'm right.

Please stop stalling and provide some evidence.

I'm not going to play the repeat game with you, if you missed it, then what exactly have you been arguing with me over?

It's poop. It has passed through the GI tract of the rabbit. You can continue to look foolish by not calling it what it is but that just makes you look even more foolish (if that is possible).

Rabbits eat their poop from an early age and continue to do it throughout their lives., It is a big partof their diet.

Oh I look foolish do I?

The process by which cecotropes are produced is called "hindgut fermentation". Food passes through the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, where nutrients are initially absorbed ineffectively

Cecotrope

Your a fool!

So now your excuse at the failure of Tooth's Folly is that you have not shared it? No wonder it is known as Tooth's Folly.

Actually that was YOUR excuse, so I'm trying to figure out what you have been arguing with me over if I never shared it.

Fool!

reply to post by itsthetooth

And everytime you say that without proving me wrong, it just proves that I'm right.

A non sequitur.

I'm not going to play the repeat game with you, if you missed it, then what exactly have you been arguing with me over?

Please stop stalling and provide your first piece of evidence. Everyone can see that you have provided nothign at all.
[

Oh I look foolish do I?

Yes you do.

Cecotrope

Your a fool!

I see you remembered where we told you to find the name of that particular type of poop.

Actually that was YOUR excuse, so I'm trying to figure out what you have been arguing with me over if I never shared it.

Please provide your first piece of evidence to support TF, aka Tooth's Folly.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by Sleepwalk85

 

If you don't consider the Bible to be the inherent word of god, but instead a general book of inaccuracies and half truths, what is it that convinces you and folk like you to take it so seriously?

And while you're at it could you supply a source for your claim that most biblical scholars (experts) consider the book of genisis to be a singular creation tale?

The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary.

The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary.

It also claims that a man walked on water and rose from the dead, yet as with the above, science contradicts that claim with overwhelming evidence to the contrary....

The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

(fossils?...) Well dating methods have provided overwhelming evidence to show that the world is billions of years old but nothing in regards to 'days of creation'.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.

Overwhelming evidence also shows that people cannot walk on water and that people cannot reanimate from a rotting corpse. These are facts as incontestably certain as the eventual heat death of the universe. What we can conclude however is that men and women will continually attempt to mold the bible to fit the evidence and vice versa.

So, if you don't consider the bible to be the inherent word of your god, why give it any credence at all? And what signifiers have biblical scholars (experts) found that show when a passage should be taken literally or figuratively?

(you bothered to quote the two questions asked of you in my previous reply but didn't answer either of them, what are the chances you could answer one?)

reply to post by stereologist

A non sequitur.

How can you claim to be a scientist when you don't see the connection.

Please stop stalling and provide your first piece of evidence. Everyone can see that you have provided nothign at all.

I have provided tons of evidence already.

Please provide your first piece of evidence to support TF, aka Tooth's Folly.

I have already shared that, I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.

reply to post by itsthetooth

How can you claim to be a scientist when you don't see the connection.

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? I'm never surprised at poorly some ideas are constructed, but that had to be one of the most illogical notions you've posted. It is so ridiculous that I have to wonder if you wrote that just to make over inane things you've written look better.

I have provided tons of evidence already.

No you haven't everyone reading his thread knows that is a complete and utter falsehood. So far you've offered nothing to support your folly.

At this point your refusal just shows you never intended to substantiate any of the inane claims with evidence. That may be how religion works, but not other issues. They require evidence. Please offer any evidence.

reply to post by stereologist

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? I'm never surprised at poorly some ideas are constructed, but that had to be one of the most illogical notions you've posted. It is so ridiculous that I have to wonder if you wrote that just to make over inane things you've written look better.

Sure, its an argument where the conclusion doesn't follow the premis.

No you haven't everyone reading his thread knows that is a complete and utter falsehood. So far you've offered nothing to support your folly.

At this point your refusal just shows you never intended to substantiate any of the inane claims with evidence. That may be how religion works, but not other issues. They require evidence. Please offer any evidence.

Possibly, except that this discussion you were involved in goes back to a point where everything was already shared. Sorry I'm not going to play the repeat game.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sure, its an argument where the conclusion doesn't follow the premis.

That's right. That is what you post most of the time.

Possibly, except that this discussion you were involved in goes back to a point where everything was already shared. Sorry I'm not going to play the repeat game.

Everyone reading this thread knows you have not provided even an inkling of evidence. Please post evidence supporting your claim. Your refusal simply means that all of your claims are worthless, unsubstantiated rubbish.

You are welcome to leave your folly in that state.

reply to post by stereologist


Maybe you two should Private message each other or contain your petty arguments in one thread. So far Stereo who havent offered on shread of usuable or interesting information. At least try to stay to topic.

But PM each other, might be a good idea.