Science against evolution

reply to post by stereologist

Scientific theories as I pointed out, do change if that is necessary. Changes are made when the theory is unable to explain observations. Sometimes theories are dropped when they are shown to be false. Examples of discarded theories are: Lamarckian evolution and phlogiston.

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

Target Food is an observable event just like in the diet of the abalone. No one is going to be able to discard something with so much merrt.

reply to post by colin42


Sorry...hippopotamus.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The evidence is in the patterns of all of the diets, and you can't argue or cheat your way out of that one.

Then why is it when I test your claims against your rules target food fails?

FYI the only way I can cheat using your rules is if your rules are lies and that cannot be, can it. That would infer you cheated as they are your rules and your claims..

Target Food has NEVER failed.

That is your opinion accompanied by no supporting evidence at all. Yet what I find is when I test your claims with your rules target food fails every time. Please refer back to all the posts that confirm this to avoid the repeat game.

Target Food and its evidence have been posted many times, I'm not going to repeat them.

I have checked this thread and other threads and found only your opinion so when I test your claim against the evidence on this forum I find only your opinion not evidence.

FYI Google also has definitions.

Definition of Google

brand name of a leading Internet search engine, founded in 1998.

Your answer is incorrect

What we see is you trying to make it fail, but it doesn't.

Look back to all the occasions where I demonstrate it failing every time when your claims are tested against your rules

reply to post by itsthetooth

Target Food is an observable event just like in the diet of the abalone. No one is going to be able to discard something with so much merrt.

Yes it is an exciting turn of events that's for sure. Cannot wait for you to post the results of notes gathered from your scientific observations

One problem I have despite my excitement is I cannot find a description of what observable event means. The best result is this: Observable event

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the exact phrase observable events.

Please could you point me to an appropriate link for a description?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sorry...hippopotamus.

Oh right.

There are plenty of gaps in evolution, in fact I just heard yesterday that the closest we have to a whale is a hippopotamouse.

You would find gaps if that is the standard of your information Evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales.

Closest LIVING RELATIVE. Big difference. I am 100% sure this has been spoon fed to you many times so I am shocked you don’t know this already.

It appears you just want to conduct the continuous repeat game you keep complaining about and that cannot be true, can it?

reply to post by colin42

Then why is it when I test your clams against your rules target food fails?

Because you continue to falsly believe that Target Food is a relationship between the planet and the food, rather than the consumer and the food.

FYI the only way I can cheat using your rules is if your rules are lies and that cannot be, can it. That would infer you cheated as they are your rules and your claims..

Colin I have caught you more than once trying to move the goal posts to fit your fantasy. For example the house sparrow I believe it was, you stretched it to claim that there was a relationship between the bird and the humans, when in fact that was false, the relationship was between the birds and the homes. You try to do the same thing to target food to make it appear false, by claimin that Target food cant exist because no native life is here, failing to realize that the relationship is betwen the consumer and the food not the planet and the food.

That is your opinion accompanied by no supporting evidence at all. Yet what I find is when I test your claims with your rules target food fails every time. Please refer back to all the posts that confirm this to avoid the repeat game.

Two alien subjects can be native to each other while on an alien planet.

I have checked this thread and other threads and found only your opinion so when I test your claim against the evidence on this forum I find only your opinion not evidence.

observed patterns in diets are by no means an opinion.

FYI Google also has definitions.

Definition of Google
brand name of a leading Internet search engine, founded in 1998.
Your answer is incorrect

The Web's dominant search engine lost its trademark to the ever-hungry English dictionaries.
www.alphadictionary.com/articles/word_of_the_year_2006.html

google dictionary
As you can see, your wrong again.

Look back to all the occasions where I demonstrate it failing every time when your claims are tested against your rules

I never made a rule that Target Food can only exist on a native planet.

reply to post by colin42

Yes it is an exciting turn of events that's for sure. Cannot wait for you to post the results of notes gathered from your scientific observations

One problem I have despite my excitement is I cannot find a description of what observable event means. The best result is this: Observable event

If you don't know what an observable event is, then you probably shouldn't be on ATS.

Please could you point me to an appropriate link for a description?

You will have to research the definitions seperatly to figure this one out. Humans do put words together to form sentances, you will be there soon.

reply to post by colin42

You would find gaps if that is the standard of your information Evolution of whales

Looks like someone has been playing a bad game of connect the dots again.

Closest LIVING RELATIVE. Big difference. I am 100% sure this has been spoon fed to you many times so I am shocked you don’t know this already.

It appears you just want to conduct the continuous repeat game you keep complaining about and that cannot be true, can it?

There is no proof that evolution does any of this, through any method. Common descent or common ansestor.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then why is it when I test your clams against your rules target food fails?

Because you continue to falsly believe that Target Food is a relationship between the planet and the food, rather than the consumer and the food.

Nope in spite of you changing your claim that all life was destroyed, a feat that even the comet that heralded the end of the dinosaurs could not achieve leading to the conclusion this world would need to be geo engineered that you never opposed until you realised that would result in an artificially prepared world.

Ignoring that even if an impossible flood was the cause the minimum that would need repairing and maintaining until life was established is maintenance of the soil and atmosphere. Which still results in an artificially prepared world

Despite that turn around, (commonly referred to as moving the goalposts) no organic life above maybe bacteria is natural to this world. The method of transporting that life to this world is also according to you not natural. When you apply YOUR golden rule that all process must be natural in regards to target food, target food fails.

These are your rules and your claims. If the results are false then there is an error with your rules, claims or both. To coin a phrase you often use. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Colin I have caught you more than once trying to move the goal posts to fit your fantasy.

Told you before that this site has the ability to post quotes. Show your evidence for that claim or retract it.

As for the rest of your nonsense I would like to remind you your denial of the house sparrows relationship with man is your problem but if you want to link to where I changed the goal posts feel free, if not remember you refuse to play the repeat game.

Two alien subjects can be native to each other while on an alien planet.

So what? They fall foul of your rule that being alien to this planet they are not natural and so fail the golden rule

observed patterns in diets are by no means an opinion.

That may be so but your unfounded conclusions re the diets with no supporting evidence are just your opinion.

As you can see, your wrong again

Nope what I see is you have not understood the information you posted and you have linked to google front page. That makes you dishonest to boot

I never made a rule that Target Food can only exist on a native planet.

You made the rule that there can be no processes that are not natural and/or caused by means that are not natural. Are you telling me you are about to move the goalposts again?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yes it is an exciting turn of events that's for sure. Cannot wait for you to post the results of notes gathered from your scientific observations

One problem I have despite my excitement is I cannot find a description of what observable event means. The best result is this: Observable event

For some reason you left this out

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the exact phrase observable events.

If you don't know what an observable event is, then you probably shouldn't be on ATS.

There were no returns on a search for 'observable events' that means no one else knows what it means. By your logic no one should be on ATS.

I made a reasonable request and your reply was less than gracious. I take it you are unable to point me to a description either and please do not try the broken link ploy, you will just make yourself look even more dishonest.

You will have to research the definitions seperatly to figure this one out. Humans do put words together to form sentances, you will be there soon.

I already did more than I needed to. I search using google for a term you used and found no results. If you cannot explain what you meant then say so, then stop using a phrase that no one understands.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You would find gaps if that is the standard of your information Evolution of whales

Looks like someone has been playing a bad game of connect the dots again.

Tooth. You have made a statement that is a fundamental error I would not expect from someone that has spent over a year trying to disprove evolution to make.

I have corrected you despite being given all this information in the past. The least you could do is acknowledge my help in correcting your basic error.

Closest LIVING RELATIVE. Big difference. I am 100% sure this has been spoon fed to you many times so I am shocked you don’t know this already.

It appears you just want to conduct the continuous repeat game you keep complaining about and that cannot be true, can it?

There is no proof that evolution does any of this, through any method. Common descent or common ansestor.

Obviously you do proving without doubt it is you that insists on playing what you call the repeat game.

I corrected you and pointed out your error re the Hippo. Your post implied the whale evolved from the hippo. Evolution says it is the closest living relative. Whether you accept the information contained in thread or not at least be honest about what evolution says.

I refer you back to the numerous times and numerous threads where evidence showing your often repeated nonsense was shown to be in error. Unless you intend to demonstrate a more honest approach then I see no reason to play YOUR repeat game.

reply to post by colin42

Nope in spite of you changing your claim that all life was destroyed, a feat that even the comet that heralded the end of the dinosaurs could not achieve leading to the conclusion this world would need to be geo engineered that you never opposed until you realised that would result in an artificially prepared world.

No one has ever claimed that a great comet wiped out all the life.

Ignoring that even if an impossible flood was the cause the minimum that would need repairing and maintaining until life was established is maintenance of the soil and atmosphere. Which still results in an artificially prepared world

I never claimed it wasn't artificially prepared.

Despite that turn around, (commonly referred to as moving the goalposts) no organic life above maybe bacteria is natural to this world. The method of transporting that life to this world is also according to you not natural. When you apply YOUR golden rule that all process must be natural in regards to target food, target food fails.

I meant processes as they are here, not where they originated from. It would still be unnatural, in process, but the food can be natural.

These are your rules and your claims. If the results are false then there is an error with your rules, claims or both. To coin a phrase you often use. Don’t shoot the messenger.

The message is that Target Food is determined by the consumer and food relationship not the planet and food relationship.

Told you before that this site has the ability to post quotes. Show your evidence for that claim or retract it.

It was already posted and proven that you had attempted to move the goal post.

As for the rest of your nonsense I would like to remind you your denial of the house sparrows relationship with man is your problem but if you want to link to where I changed the goal posts feel free, if not remember you refuse to play the repeat game.

Would the sparrows live in the homes if they were abandonded? Yes they would, so the relationship is with the house not the person. Your lying.

So what? They fall foul of your rule that being alien to this planet they are not natural and so fail the golden rule

Two aliens can still be from the same place making thier relationship native.

That may be so but your unfounded conclusions re the diets with no supporting evidence are just your opinion.

The clear patterns in the diets have been pointed out many times, I'm not going to repeat them, you can view back and get them.

Nope what I see is you have not understood the information you posted and you have linked to google front page. That makes you dishonest to boot

Just because YOUR outdated browser takes you to front page doesn't mean it does for me or anyone else.

You made the rule that there can be no processes that are not natural and/or caused by means that are not natural. Are you telling me you are about to move the goalposts again?

There are no goal posts to move, as soon as the planet starts eating food, you will have an argument. The relationship is between the consumer and the food not the planet and the food.

For some reason you left this out

Your going to have to come to terms with your own petty attempts of disarming definitions.

I also find no dictionary term for "learning fast" but I know it exists.

There were no returns on a search for 'observable events' that means no one else knows what it means. By your logic no one should be on ATS.

No it doesn't, what it means is that no one else has taken the time to share it over the internet, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you honeslty think that EVERYTHING is on the internet.

I made a reasonable request and your reply was less than gracious. I take it you are unable to point me to a description either and please do not try the broken link ploy, you will just make yourself look even more dishonest.

You can look up the words seperatly, when you put words together, its called sentance assembly, and its real.

I already did more than I needed to. I search using google for a term you used and found no results. If you cannot explain what you meant then say so, then stop using a phrase that no one understands

Anyone with a first grade education would know that observable event is an event that is observable.

Tooth. You have made a statement that is a fundamental error I would not expect from someone that has spent over a year trying to disprove evolution to make.

I have corrected you despite being given all this information in the past. The least you could do is acknowledge my help in c

reply to post by colin42

Tooth. You have made a statement that is a fundamental error I would not expect from someone that has spent over a year trying to disprove evolution to make.

I have corrected you despite being given all this information in the past. The least you could do is acknowledge my help in correcting your basic error.

Its looking like you will never run out of dots. If Humans were the closest thing to whales, you would press on that there is an obvious relation there, as we are both on this blue planet.

Obviously you do proving without doubt it is you that insists on playing what you call the repeat game.

I corrected you and pointed out your error re the Hippo. Your post implied the whale evolved from the hippo. Evolution says it is the closest living relative. Whether you accept the information contained in thread or not at least be honest about what evolution says.

I refer you back to the numerous times and numerous threads where evidence showing your often repeated nonsense was shown to be in error. Unless you intend to demonstrate a more honest approach then I see no reason to play YOUR repeat game.

Then repeat after me... Evolution is false, it can't be proven, and never will be proven, and its theory is full of holes.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats just your way of coming up with something to dismiss the idea of intelligence or possibility of a creator. The fact is you don't know one way or the other if there is intent behind changes, and I'm leaning more on the idea that everything happens for a reason.

That failed notion was the concept behind Lamarckian evolution which was quickly seen to be false.

There are plenty of gaps in evolution, in fact I just heard yesterday that the closest we have to a whale is a hippopotamouse.

Pointless.

I already posted the definition for proof and it included evidence.

Posting a definition does not mean you understand it. Your posts reveal you do not.

Everything I have been sent to here on ATS about evolution made it clear there is no proof of evolution, and that its never been witnessed either. You have clearly gone on a connect the dot binge and put together a puzzle where the pieces don't fit. If evolution were real we would have a lot more internediate species then we do, but the best we have is speciation, which doesn't prove a species is changing, and doesn't prove a species is changing into another species either. You have done all the guess work that you can, its time to man up and start presenting facts instead of pseudo science.

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

What if they were simply just brought here later on, oh, and we even have documentation of it too, its called the bible.

Your proof is a book of fiction? How sad.

You don't use reasoning, you use the jump to conclusions mat.

Laughable.

Facts are presented in theory, not through hypothesis, you don't guess something then call it a fact, well you do anyhow.

Laughable gibberish.

Are you thereby admitting that humans have witnessed a species changing into another species? And put your money where your mouth is, I want to see proof, not this lame excuse that you claim you already posted it when you haven't.

Evidence posted in this thread.

Nothing has ever proven Target Food to be false and I honeslty wait for that moment.

Evidence and proof posted in this thread.

My argument is strongly supported by the aforementioned, so when you claim that I'm wrong, you are also claiming they are all also wrong. So what is, is everyone else wrong, and you are right?

Straw man argument from desperation.

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

That is a lie. The wiki article lists 2 reports showing Pye wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Again, anyone can claim they are hoaxers, I wasn't looking for opinions.

There are foolish people that believe the baloney written by VonDaniken and Sitchin. They are close minded fools unable to understand the simple reasons that these hoaxers lie about the evidence.

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.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Read what I wrote, don't make assumptions or throw in your own ideas. The act of fusing two chromosomes together is a LAB technique.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens outside of the lab.

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

Everyone bow to your new God EVOLUTION.

Clumsy pontification. Only fools believe that DNA changes are guided. I've seen those fools on stage at creationist lectures. I am well aware of how close minded and foolish these people are. I have listened to them.

There are many things that man is barely able to replicate in the lab. There are many things man is unable to replicate in the lab that happen in nature. Suggesting that man being able to replicate a natural phenomena in the lab has any effect on the world outside of the lab is hubris. It's the sort of stupidity I've seen many times from creationists as they strut around the stage thumping their fiction called the bible.

But thats evidence, not proof, don't you think your jumping the gun a tad there.

This is wonderful. You are learning the difference between evidence and proof. This banter with you is not pointless after all.

There has never been a study that has proven that a reptile can change into a mammal.

The fossil records shows you are wrong, in fact completely wrong.

The theory of Target Food is not limited to only the diets I posted, it applies to all diets. I'm still looking for the diet that problaims an experimental phase, but you would need several of them. I'm still waiting.

TF is not a theory in the sense of a scientific theory. It is not based on facts. It is not falsifiable. It has been shown to be wrong countless times in this thread.

Well you can keep telling yourself that, and I'm sure youll convince yourself of it too, but the fact is no one has presented even a glimer of hope to disprove Target Food. It's a solid theory with nothing to prove it wrong.

Proved wrong countless times in this thread.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So now your admitting to being a liar. Your claiming that I haven't presented any proof, yet you have been arguing with me and claiming it to be a fantasy. How could you know if its a fantasy if you have never seen the proof?

Another lie. TF is a fantasy believe by apparently only 1 person.

There is a big difference between something having a large diet, and experimenting with food. You haven't produced anything that shows anything experimenting with food, that wasn't starving.

Another lie. Deer experiment with food when food is plentiful.

I have, and you will have to look back to read them.

100% of the nonsense claims of TF have been proved wrong.

The act of fusing two chromosomes together is not found naturally, chemical scissors are needed in a strict enviroment to perform this action, perhaps it would help you to study up a tad about this.

False. Take a basic biology course and learn.

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

Pointless opinion.

There are still to many areas on this planet that appear to be missing large quanties of water, like the grand canyon. A mile deep and 7-14 miles wide. Where did all the water go, where did it come from?

Ridiculous claim. Take a basic course in geography and learn why this is nonsensical.

I think its possible to have water underneath plates.

I believe that you would believe this possible even though everyone else knows this is nonsensical.

Dont shoot the messenger, I can't keep reposting it just because you live in your own world of definitions.

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

Then you must have missed the 14 links I posted that all agree there were UFO's in biblical times. /quote]
Not posted in this thread.

So because a 3rd party took their own views about star child and posted them and refused to allow Pye to adjust them, your going to automatically believe the 3rd party over the author? I think its more like your going to believe whatever fits your fantasy.

The studies show Pye wrong. Only Pye tries to misrepresent the studies.

The first test was faulty, they used an old primer technique, and the tests that followed were a lot more thorough. The problem was he jumped on the chance of getting the skull tested, and later learned that the test could only reveal if there were human traits present in the DNA. The test did not have the ability to test for unknown DNA patterns. The most recent test did, and proved its either part human, or a hybrid, but has DNA that is NOT found in the NIH database. They were able to conclude from that, its alien.

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

Repeating Pye's lies is meaningless. To claim that the second test proved anything is rubbish to begin with. The second test was inconclusive. To conclude that an inconclusive test is indicative of a wacko outcome is ludicrous. Then again someone selling the failed notion of TF is probably unable to comprehend what an inconclusive test means.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well Pye was just eager to get DNA testing not knowing that it would be faulty because of the type of test he is needing isn't of the norm. He needs a test that will reveal everything, including unknown things so that this skull can be identified.

The consensus is that the skull is that of a human. Pye would like to pretend it is something else. When a test comes back inconclusive it certainly does not mean that there is anything abnormal happening.

I posted 14 links for itero to read quite some time back that all claim it to be a ufo.

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

You might have posted links in some long forgotten thread, but not in this thread. The claim that this is a UFO is a modern claim made by hoaxers like VonDaniken. I don't need to refute the UFO fairy tale. YOU need to provide PROOF that it is a UFO. The burden is on the claimant. Just like the stupidity of TF is not for others to refute but for the claimant to PROVE. So far there has been zero effort made by the claimant to prove anything.

If you have the background into the supernatural like I do, and you read that entire section, its plain to see that there are some things amiss with the event. They were abducted, not created.

You admit that this is nothing more than a fanciful claim made by someone unable to provide any evidence whatsoever. The bible says you are wrong as I pointed out already.

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

The bible makes no mention of memories being erased. This claim is therefore a lie, or just your bad recollection of a sermon you sat through in Sunday school.

I'm still waiting for anyone to prove Target Food wrong, and I just don't mean people saying its false.

Evidence and proof already posted.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no proof that species slowly change into another species after much time. There are however many varied species here on earth but thats not proof.

Proof already posted.

Just because its convenient, doesn't mean its accurate. You just found a way to connect dots is all.

Pointless comment of no relevance to the subject at hand.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's scarce, but I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.

TF long ago shown to be wrong.

I'll make it easy for you, you can even pick the diets, just pick as many diets as you wish from however many species.

The burden is on the claimant to support their position.

Target food is the GOAL of any species, and easy to prove by looking at ANY diet.

TF is a fantasy.