Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

reply to post by Macdon

Do you REALLY think that all the species that exists on Earth developed in any other way?

Or do you REALLY think that all species on Earth just POPPED into being?

Give me a VIABLE alternative and I will be happy to listen.

Split Infinity

reply to post by addygrace


Noahs ark did exist

reply to post by itsthetooth


So each animal has a single target food it is meant to eat

how do you explain omnivores ??

How can an animal that is designed to eat a single target food has the ability to easily digest,meat,fish,fruiit,nuts,plant,wheat,vegetables successfuly and draw nutrient.

No animal can adapt its own internal fauna or digestive architecture to suit going phase 2 so again I say omnivöres dont eat one food they eat many.

QED.


If each arimal has A target food NO animal would be created with a digestive system that is effective across many food groups.

Why would such a creature be created iif Target food was truth.

If a creature is designed to eat A target föod as you suggest then all animal's
digestive system would be specialised to that target food.

If an animal has the ability to efficiently
digest and process and metabolise across food groups,it wasnt created to eat A target food but a varied diet debunking target foods.

You formed this theory from öbservation,of what,by the way ??

Have you ever had dogs from young pups?? you'll know animals do experiment.

How do animals know what to eat ??

being fed as newly borns by the mother coming back with food and feeding them,
spieces knowledge,hard wired instinct,learnt behaviour,smells triggering hormones in the brain to feela hunger,

By the way i've lived in the wilds most my life,whether its fishing,hunting,shooting,working in forests ,mountains i know wild animals,HAVE
observed them for nearly 40 years,.not based on f**king squirrel wike,why do you think I can't let it go.

A lifetimes observation and i have yet to see an animal that eats only one type of food,..the exception being panda,koala,sloth,cows n sheep ~ do you know what they have in common ??

a highly specialised digestive system ~ you say i've brought nothing to counter your theory.
every animal living on A target food is asking to die out.

no animal but a few rare exceptions live off one food cös its Russian Roulette.

Animals that eat A target food

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by addygrace

 

Noahs ark did exist

LOL! from your source! Bigfoot is Real

Where is the evidence that the headline alludes to? Speculative nonsense, and insubstantial, unfounded statements, suggestons, and assorted gibberish do not constitute evidence. Evidence is necessarily factual that is why it is called "evidence."

It's funny how you can dismiss peer reviewed journals but embrace tabloid nonsense as fact what is your deal with this willful ignorance.

reply to post by fastbob72

So each animal has a single target food it is meant to eat

how do you explain omnivores ??

How can an animal that is designed to eat a single target food has the ability to easily digest,meat,fish,fruiit,nuts,plant,wheat,vegetables successfuly and draw nutrient.

First of all they could eat rocks and dirt if they tried. Any species with such a diverse diet, say, as humans, is a good clue that they are far from target food. From what I can tell, each species is supposed to eat one to three things and get all necessary nutrients from that food. Of course this is the ideal food for that species, thus the name Target food.
When you see a species eating almost everything within a food group, it's a clue that they are in phase one of hunger. They are instinctivly looking for the target food. They don't have a photograph nor do they know the smell or taste, they just know. Target food would be automatically picked out with other foods around. Target food would be plentiful and acessable to the consumer.

No animal can adapt its own internal fauna or digestive architecture to suit going phase 2 so again I say omnivöres dont eat one food they eat many.

There is no question that phase one two and three foods are not ideal. Of course every species will suffer something as a result, you are correct. Does that mean they can't eat these things, no, they are in fact eating them. As an example, look at the wiki diet on squirrel. They clearly expalain a regular diet, then because all of those things go extinct out of season, they actually list an alternative diet. He started on a phase one diet which means he moves to phase 2. He actually picks up a food group.

If each arimal has A target food NO animal would be created with a digestive system that is effective across many food groups.

Again, each species could normally have as much as three food groups. It's pushing the limits though.

If a creature is designed to eat A target föod as you suggest then all animal's
digestive system would be specialised to that target food.

I think the realistic point on this is that most digestive systems work in the same manner. Most if not all of them work on acid, and the acid eats just about everything.

If an animal has the ability to efficiently
digest and process and metabolise across food groups,it wasnt created to eat A target food but a varied diet debunking target foods.

I don't see that just because a species can digest something, that it's proof it was suppose to.

You formed this theory from öbservation,of what,by the way ??

This theory was formed from the observation of a plethora of different diets. All of the work for this observation is allready done, and sitting with the information that we have learned about each diet. On a rare occasion a species teaches their young how and what to eat, but the rest of the species have pre programmed direction.

Have you ever had dogs from young pups?? you'll know animals do experiment.

First of all your talking about domesticated animals, we dictate what they eat, even more to the point, we actually manufacture food specifically for them. However this man made food doesn't automatically fill in that need for target food. So while the dog is unhappy with the food we made for him, you might see him scavanging, or digging through the trash as he is still in search of his target food.

How do animals know what to eat ??

That is the million dollar question. It's easy to rule out personal choice, as the lack of evidence is apparent. It would appear that each species is pre programmed to know what food they should be eating.

By the way i've lived in the wilds most my life,whether its fishing,hunting,shooting,working in forests ,mountains i know wild animals,HAVE
observed them for nearly 40 years,.not based on f**king squirrel wike,why do you think I can't let it go.

Not everything is based on the squirrel diet. Target food is based on the plethora of diets that I have looked at. You too can check them out and see for yourself, there is no experimental phase of eating unless the species is starved.

...

reply to post by fastbob72

A lifetimes observation and i have yet to see an animal that eats only one type of food,..the exception being panda,koala,sloth,cows n sheep ~ do you know what they have in common ??

And you would be very correct. Yes it would appear that most species are not eating target food. This is because of two reasons. First if that those species were brought here, just like it states in the bible, all these things were brought here. If thier target food was brought here with them is the question. In addition to this, there is a large problem that was created by bringing all of these things here to earth. You cant take things that are supposed to be from a balanced planet, and just put them all together like a soup and expect them to all work out here. What we have is survival of the fittest and the apex preditors are winning this war. We have lost countless species as have have gone through 5 extinctions so far and are now in our 6th, looking at a loss of 99% of life as we know it.

I don't know what panda, koala, sloth, cows, and sheep have in common. Maybe that we breed them all.

a highly specialised digestive system ~ you say i've brought nothing to counter your theory.
every animal living on A target food is asking to die out.

Well your assuming that they are in fac eating their target food. The only one that comes to mind right now is the abalone, that eats kelp.

no animal but a few rare exceptions live off one food cös its Russian Roulette.

Animals that eat A target food

A target food is ideal to the consumer. This food will pack the most nutrients and best balance for that specific species.

Another example that we are missing target food for humans, is how we don't have a natural source for calcium. Looking at a chart for calcium, we find that fruits and veggies don't add up, and leave us short in our daily needs. The highest naturl thing on the list is sardines, and you will need 5.4 servings a day to get your1000mg. Of course thats no applicable either. Cow milk is not natural. Due to the fact that its first of all meant for baby cows, and we have to process the hell out of it to make it safe for human consumption. At any rate, 3 to 4 servings a day of dairy is even better. But processed sea weed is 7 to 14 times higher than dairy.

It's easy to see we have a problem here, how are we supposed to maintain our need for a 1000mg per day goal?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Noah's arc existed because there might have been a flood around the same time? At least read the articles you post. And you dismiss scientific articles with one line but don't even read one from the article you post? It was about a flood happening. Not Noah's ark existing. Stop lying. This guy just googles catch phrases and posts the first thing he sees.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Mate all you are doing is stating that animals have nutritional requirements and feed what on what gives them the what they need.

By calling it target foods it becomes something new significant based on your interpretatiodn of what you think you're seeing.
'
No,it's nature.Very species has a single food that is ideal for it.

Why ??

That food doesn't exist and never did.Nothing is perfect or ideal ??

If it did then that may be an indication of a creator or an overall design.

You look at it see the lack of ideal fooad as proof that we/they came from another planet where that food is.

I see lack of a single ideal food as an indication that there isnt an intelligent creator or coherent reason for life and life has adapted to exploit what it isa available.

That's what this comes to.

Me and you will never be able to agree.What you obseve seems to prove a designer whereas to me it doesnt.

Whatever you say I will counter and you
'll countder back.

We both seem to agree the situation
of life on earth is not ideal.That we can agree but we will never agree and never will because we totally disagree on what it means
.
To me that reinforces the lack of an intelligence or design,it isnt ideal because it never has been and life exploits whats available and adapts to it's situation.

That things adapt,change and evolve over time is as clear simple to me.

Exactly the same,because it isnt ideal that tells you that planet earth isnt our home.

What you see proves that and proves to me something different.

I can't produce any living thing that is observeably evolving and you cant produce your creator and show him/it at work büt thats what it'd take.

Everything else is argueing over details.

reply to post by Barcs


Sorry, just going by the title.

Evidence Suggests Noah's Ark Flood Existed, Says Robert Ballard, Archaeologist Who Found Titanic

Noahs ark flood

reply to post by fastbob72

Mate all you are doing is stating that animals have nutritional requirements and feed what on what gives them the what they need.

By calling it target foods it becomes something new significant based on your interpretatiodn of what you think you're seeing.
'
No,it's nature.Very species has a single food that is ideal for it.

Why ??

Because some species have ideal food, while others don't. The reasons why this is the way that it is, again is because of how things were brought to earth.

That food doesn't exist and never did.Nothing is perfect or ideal ??

When any species has to rely on something other than target food, they will go through whats known as a reduction in the quality of life.
Here is a good example...
We don't have a good supply for calcium, So we learned that cows milk is a fair and I mean fair supply. Only problem is we have to pasturize it to kill of bacteria and make is safe for human consumption, we have to fortify it, as it lacks any other benefits from having to pasturize it. We have to homogenize it as the cream is to rich to handle for normal consumption.

Now we could go through just as much trouble to make trees eatable, we could process the wood to soften it up and make it chewable. We could process it to make sure there are no parasites. We could even fortify it and make it worth eating. The bottom line is we can make anything worth eating, the question is why are we having to go through such great lengths? It simply because it was not food that was intended for us to eat. There is even a woman that likes to eat toilet paper, that doesn't mean that toilet paper was intended for us to eat.

If it did then that may be an indication of a creator or an overall design.

That seems to be the key in the whole issue. It appears to support that direction, while it wasn't intended, I only observed, what I observed. From dozens of diets of various species, it all points in that direction. Of course I'm on the fence about such things but will say this about Target food, it at least supports the idea that there was some form of intelligence to program.

You look at it see the lack of ideal fooad as proof that we/they came from another planet where that food is.

I see lack of a single ideal food as an indication that there isnt an intelligent creator or coherent reason for life and life has adapted to exploit what it isa available.

Well thats exactly correct, what life there is here has exploited what is available, and it's not suppose to be that way. Life is not suppose to have to exploit to survive, planets are suppose to be set up to cater to the needs of all that are suppose to be there. The reason I know this to be the way that things are, even though I have never been to another planet is because its the only way it will work. What we see here on earth is actually not working. Facing the 6th largest extinction is not normal, and not natural. Of course evolution claims that this is all a part of the cycle of life, however death while natural is normal, death in abundance is not.

That's what this comes to.

Me and you will never be able to agree.What you obseve seems to prove a designer whereas to me it doesnt.

Whatever you say I will counter and you
'll countder back.

We both seem to agree the situation
of life on earth is not ideal.That we can agree but we will never agree and never will because we totally disagree on what it means
.
To me that reinforces the lack of an intelligence or design,it isnt ideal because it never has been and life exploits whats available and adapts to it's situation.

Thats because the life thats here, including us, sufferes from the effects of intervention. We were all placed here against the intended purpose.

That things adapt,change and evolve over time is as clear simple to me.

Exactly the same,because it isnt ideal that tells you that planet earth isnt our home.

What you see proves that and proves to me something different.

Well we have historical documentation that tells us that Earth is not our home.

I can't produce any living thing that is observeably evolving and you cant produce your creator and show him/it at work büt thats what it'd take.

Everything else is argueing over details.

Correct again, the bible or at least the events that occured can't be proven or disproven because we lack the supernatural element that raises much dissbelief.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by fastbob72

 

Nope Target food was observed by me, however, I'm not the first to realize that it's true...

How do animals have it all figured out

An even better question is how do animals know what not to eat...
ragwort

How can animals detect poisioness things...
poisioness

So as you can see, your wrong. Other people have identified that there is a hell of a lot more to animals choosing food, then choice, more than selection, more than food groups. The observation goes beyond those limitations down to programing.

From the first link ( which is an "ask" type site , that I see you posted in):

Take many an opportunistic species out of it's natural habitat and give it ready access to all types of unnatural, savory foods, and they will gorge and get fat and sick just like us. Goats will choose grains, fruit and other sweet/starchy foods over grass, bark and weeds any day - they'll eat them until they're severely ill if they get the chance (take if from someone who spent her formative years around plenty of goats!). Some animals truly are specialized in their eating habits, so much that they will starve and die if their one usual food source is taken away. But humans are one of the ultimate omnivores. We're hardly alone however. Most of the bird species you mentioned for instance are seasonal/local opportunistic eaters. You may see them eating mass amounts of one available food source but they are actually well-adapted to a variety of foods, depending on where they are and what is available. A good example is the American robin; did you know the majority of their calories come from fruits and berries? The worms and larvae we seem to see them hunting all day are mostly for feeding their babies. Give robins unlimited access to fermented sweet fruits, and they show a preference for eating them until they are thoroughly intoxicated (and can't fly). Hardly any wisdom involved there.

From the second link( which is a forum site where someone posed a question, which is what I assume you are calling proof):

We've got horses and they seem to know that ragwort is poisonous to them because they'll eat around it. There must be something about the ragwort that gives off the warning. Do the young ones learn from the older ones or is it an innate ability to spot poisonous plants?

the 2 replies:

no science or anything in this reply, just a personal opinion. I think it is learned behaviour from the mother / father, over centuries of experimentation and trial and error. Hay (no pun intended) that horse has eaten that plant and died, we best leave it alone, type of thing. To slightly deviate, i see something similar happening in say hedgehogs. Plenty are killed on the roads, but more actually cross safely. I think this is also a learned and observed behaviour, so why after years of automobiles do they still get squashed? Well i reckon that the majority have learned all about cars and will allow time to cross safely, but cars have progressively gotten faster and it will take somw time for this realisation to be learned. sorry again for the deviation, but i think it shows how behaviour, danger and knowledge is gained. not just in the animal kingdom but in all life.

When we fart and the smell is too bad we know that the potty is getting poisnous. And it may harm the stomach.So it is a signal to get rid of the health hazard. If there is no smell then one can some more liberty. There is no mechanical device which necessitates the garbage collection... Similarly in horses they have senses and evolutionary habits to seperate the poisnous from delicious.

Silly, but true and against tooth's claim

From the third link ( this a pdf seems to go directly against your claim again)

Grazing behavior and diet selection is an ongoing and dynamic interaction between plants and animals that represents millions of years of coevolution, and it is extremely complex. When viewed in an ecological context, plants and animals represent an example of the joint evolution of two populations, whereby each is influenced and, in turn, influences the other.

Simply pathetic......tooth's link contradictions again and again. Ohhh and atrocious links BTW for making any scientific claim.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Sorry, just going by the title.

Evidence Suggests Noah's Ark Flood Existed, Says Robert Ballard, Archaeologist Who Found Titanic

Noahs ark flood

Yes, Noah's ark FLOOD. "Noah's ark" being the adjective describing the noun, "flood". It's not saying Noah's ark existed, it's saying that a flood happened around the time the Noah story is believed to happen. But that's exactly what I said. You google catch phrases and don't scrutinize or even read what you post. Uncool dude. People are going out of their way to post legitimate informative articles based on scientific facts for you, to try to help improve your understanding, and you won't have the common courtesy to do the same. If you won't even put an effort in, why should others? What discussion do you really want to have, here?

reply to post by Connector


Thanks connector, for finding so much that agrees with what I have been saying.

Take many an opportunistic species out of it's natural habitat and give it ready access to all types of unnatural, savory foods, and they will gorge and get fat and sick just like us.

Once again, remove the subject from Target food and they will go through a reduction in the quality of life, just like I have been saying.

Goats will choose grains, fruit and other sweet/starchy foods over grass, bark and weeds any day - they'll eat them until they're severely ill if they get the chance (take if from someone who spent her formative years around plenty of goats!).

Weird things can happen when the target food is no available, but even weirder things will happen when bad food choices are present, just like with humans. I just watched a program on TV about a woman that has eaten nothing but sugar foods and candy for twenty years.

Some animals truly are specialized in their eating habits, so much that they will starve and die if their one usual food source is taken away. But humans are one of the ultimate omnivores. We're hardly alone however. Most of the bird species you mentioned for instance are seasonal/local opportunistic eaters. You may see them eating mass amounts of one available food source but they are actually well-adapted to a variety of foods, depending on where they are and what is available.

Yep, don't be confused with limited availability with it being the target food. Also don't confuse a prior food to naturaly be the target food either. Most species we find are in a phase of hunger, or out of target food.

no science or anything in this reply, just a personal opinion. I think it is learned behaviour from the mother / father, over centuries of experimentation and trial and error.

Thats what happens when you think, you think wrong. I'm not thinking about Target food, I'm observing it.

To slightly deviate, i see something similar happening in say hedgehogs. Plenty are killed on the roads, but more actually cross safely. I think this is also a learned and observed behaviour, so why after years of automobiles do they still get squashed? Well i reckon that the majority have learned all about cars and will allow time to cross safely, but cars have progressively gotten faster and it will take somw time for this realisation to be learned. sorry again for the deviation, but i think it shows how behaviour, danger and knowledge is gained. not just in the animal kingdom but in all life.

There is a lot that can said about assuming. Now if he had actually observed them looking both directions before crossing, that would raise suspicions. There is no arguemnt that on a rare occasion, a species learns by something. It could be from what food to eat, or not eat, down to crossing the road. The problem is that this is not the norm amongst most species, so whats there excuse?

Grazing behavior and diet selection is an ongoing and dynamic interaction between plants and animals that represents millions of years of coevolution, and it is extremely complex. When viewed in an ecological context, plants and animals represent an example of the joint evolution of two populations, whereby each is influenced and, in turn, influences the other.

So which is it, are the species learning from each other, or are they coevolving? It sounds more like your grasping at straws to try to find some proof against target food, and while claiming that it's coevolution is not proof, you might want to start looking at the diet of several species to learn that I'm correct.

reply to post by Barcs

Yes, Noah's ark FLOOD. "Noah's ark" being the adjective describing the noun, "flood". It's not saying Noah's ark existed, it's saying that a flood happened around the time the Noah story is believed to happen. But that's exactly what I said. You google catch phrases and don't scrutinize or even read what you post. Uncool dude. People are going out of their way to post legitimate informative articles based on scientific facts for you, to try to help improve your understanding, and you won't have the common courtesy to do the same. If you won't even put an effort in, why should others? What discussion do you really want to have, here?

I see, so you think the basis of your whole argument has won based on the fact that they only found a path of the flood but not the ark.

You know they could find the ark and with no animals and you would then claim that there is no proof as there is no animals.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

Thanks connector, for finding so much that agrees with what I have been saying.

Take many an opportunistic species out of it's natural habitat and give it ready access to all types of unnatural, savory foods, and they will gorge and get fat and sick just like us.

Once again, remove the subject from Target food and they will go through a reduction in the quality of life, just like I have been saying.

Goats will choose grains, fruit and other sweet/starchy foods over grass, bark and weeds any day - they'll eat them until they're severely ill if they get the chance (take if from someone who spent her formative years around plenty of goats!).

Weird things can happen when the target food is no available, but even weirder things will happen when bad food choices are present, just like with humans. I just watched a program on TV about a woman that has eaten nothing but sugar foods and candy for twenty years.

Some animals truly are specialized in their eating habits, so much that they will starve and die if their one usual food source is taken away. But humans are one of the ultimate omnivores. We're hardly alone however. Most of the bird species you mentioned for instance are seasonal/local opportunistic eaters. You may see them eating mass amounts of one available food source but they are actually well-adapted to a variety of foods, depending on where they are and what is available.

Yep, don't be confused with limited availability with it being the target food. Also don't confuse a prior food to naturaly be the target food either. Most species we find are in a phase of hunger, or out of target food.

no science or anything in this reply, just a personal opinion. I think it is learned behaviour from the mother / father, over centuries of experimentation and trial and error.

Thats what happens when you think, you think wrong. I'm not thinking about Target food, I'm observing it.

To slightly deviate, i see something similar happening in say hedgehogs. Plenty are killed on the roads, but more actually cross safely. I think this is also a learned and observed behaviour, so why after years of automobiles do they still get squashed? Well i reckon that the majority have learned all about cars and will allow time to cross safely, but cars have progressively gotten faster and it will take somw time for this realisation to be learned. sorry again for the deviation, but i think it shows how behaviour, danger and knowledge is gained. not just in the animal kingdom but in all life.

There is a lot that can said about assuming. Now if he had actually observed them looking both directions before crossing, that would raise suspicions. There is no arguemnt that on a rare occasion, a species learns by something. It could be from what food to eat, or not eat, down to crossing the road. The problem is that this is not the norm amongst most species, so whats there excuse?

Grazing behavior and diet selection is an ongoing and dynamic interaction between plants and animals that represents millions of years of coevolution, and it is extremely complex. When viewed in an ecological context, plants and animals represent an example of the joint evolution of two populations, whereby each is influenced and, in turn, influences the other.

So which is it, are the species learning from each other, or are they coevolving? It sounds more like your grasping at straws to try to find some proof against target food, and while claiming that it's coevolution is not proof, you might want to start looking at the diet of several species to learn that I'm correct.

You moron....I posted all that to show the idiocy of your links and the lack of ANY scientific data....it was opinion or pining by internet users. I mean really....an "Ask" site? Infact most of the info from those links goes directly against your claim, yet you used them to support it. I posted all that to show how blind you are in your belief, your lack of providing ANY scientific evidence, your lack of reading comprehension and finally your lack of ability to assimilate, weight and absorb new information.

Did you not even notice I gave no opinion or rebuttal of your claim.....I simply provided more information from your links, that yet again it appears you didn't even read.

Thank you for showing you have no credibility and no desire to debate honestly or properly. No desire to learn, just a desire to preach.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Yes, Noah's ark FLOOD. "Noah's ark" being the adjective describing the noun, "flood". It's not saying Noah's ark existed, it's saying that a flood happened around the time the Noah story is believed to happen. But that's exactly what I said. You google catch phrases and don't scrutinize or even read what you post. Uncool dude. People are going out of their way to post legitimate informative articles based on scientific facts for you, to try to help improve your understanding, and you won't have the common courtesy to do the same. If you won't even put an effort in, why should others? What discussion do you really want to have, here?

I see, so you think the basis of your whole argument has won based on the fact that they only found a path of the flood but not the ark.

You know they could find the ark and with no animals and you would then claim that there is no proof as there is no animals.

Not to speak for Barc's, but I think the point is, you posted this:

Noahs ark did exist

and the article you linked to was talking about a flood....not Noah's Ark. Ergo, you screwed up again, posting links to backup your claim that don't. AKA not reading, not properly comprehending what you did read or simply being dishonest.

reply to post by Connector

You moron....I posted all that to show the idiocy of your links and the lack of ANY scientific data....it was opinion or pining by internet users. I mean really....an "Ask" site? Infact most of the info from those links goes directly against your claim, yet you used them to support it. I posted all that to show how blind you are in your belief, your lack of providing ANY scientific evidence, your lack of reading comprehension and finally your lack of ability to assimilate, weight and absorb new information.

Well then you must be the moron because most of what you posted agrees with the idea of target food, unless they specifically claimed to be guessing.

I think what has happened is your inability to comprehend has led you to believe that target food is something that it's not, but thats what happens when you don't pay attention. As I proved, most of it agreed with me, I'm sorry if your intentions were for it to do otherwise but that problem stems from your inability to pay attention.

Did you not even notice I gave no opinion or rebuttal of your claim.....I simply provided more information from your links, that yet again it appears you didn't even read.

Thank you for showing you have no credibility and no desire to debate honestly or properly. No desire to learn, just a desire to preach

Unlike you and other evolutionists, I don't try to learn nor do I want to learn from things that specifically state they are assuming or guessing.

reply to post by Connector

and the article you linked to was talking about a flood....not Noah's Ark. Ergo, you screwed up again, posting links to backup your claim that don't. AKA not reading, not properly comprehending what you did read or simply being dishonest

And you would be wrong again, as I already reposted the title to show that it is in fact speaking about noahs arks flood. Either way, which flood are we talking about here? They are specifically identifying it to noahs ark, but the flood is the main subject.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

and the article you linked to was talking about a flood....not Noah's Ark. Ergo, you screwed up again, posting links to backup your claim that don't. AKA not reading, not properly comprehending what you did read or simply being dishonest

And you would be wrong again, as I already reposted the title to show that it is in fact speaking about noahs arks flood. Either way, which flood are we talking about here? They are specifically identifying it to noahs ark, but the flood is the main subject.

No, Tooth. The fact that a flood happened in the past (and thousands of them have at one point or another) does not prove that Noah's ark existed or that Noah's story actually happened. Once again you are attempting to backpedal and change the intent of what you posted. You posted a blatant lie. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests Noah's ark is real. Not one single piece. Learn some reading comprehension skills and stop being so blatantly dishonest all of the time. I'm surprised you haven't been banned from here yet, consider all the false nonsense you have posted.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

and the article you linked to was talking about a flood....not Noah's Ark. Ergo, you screwed up again, posting links to backup your claim that don't. AKA not reading, not properly comprehending what you did read or simply being dishonest

And you would be wrong again, as I already reposted the title to show that it is in fact speaking about noahs arks flood. Either way, which flood are we talking about here? They are specifically identifying it to noahs ark, but the flood is the main subject.

No, Tooth. The fact that a flood happened in the past (and thousands of them have at one point or another) does not prove that Noah's ark existed or that Noah's story actually happened. Once again you are attempting to backpedal and change the intent of what you posted. You posted a blatant lie. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests Noah's ark is real. Not one single piece. Learn some reading comprehension skills and stop being so blatantly dishonest all of the time. I'm surprised you haven't been banned from here yet, consider all the false nonsense you have posted.