Science against evolution

reply to post by itsthetooth

Target Food has NEVER failed.

The score is 100% failure for TF.

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

Nor am I going to repeat the overwhelming evidence against.

FYI Google also has definitions.

False.

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.

TF has no merit. It is repeatedly shown to be wrong. You can't even get diets right.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

No such concept has been needed to easily refute TF. This is the sort of dopey excuse made by failures like Pye and Sitchin.

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.

You appear to be confused about anything discussed in this thread.

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

Irrelevant fantasy.

observed patterns in diets are by no means an opinion.

Irrelevant.

As you can see, your wrong again.

Pointless word game being used by a failed position.

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

Pointless claim being made by a failed position.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

Posting nonsense is not the purpose of this forum no matter how strongly you cling to that position.

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.

The odd thing is that some humans can think and spell. Others hope that their drivel can somehow be worked out despite the poor wording, bad grammar, multitude of misspellings, incorrect word choice, and incoherent narrative.

We shouldn't have to guess the meaning of a vomit of words. That is what we often deal with.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

As often suggested, take a basic course in biology when you get to high school and learn.

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

Evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is the observed change. Evolution is not a force, or intent, or any of those things often claimed by creationists. Take a basic course in biology when you get to high school and learn.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

Pointless commentary.

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

That's the sort of mantra spoken by liars called creationist lecturers. They are close minded fools that refuse to examine the evidence in favor of their bronze age fairy tale called the bible.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is well tested and resilient.

Only one person, and definitely not tooth, has presented any science suggesting an issue with evolution. After a lengthy and interesting discussion it was determined that the article did not pose evidence against evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

And you believe only you can draw valid meaning from the bible and without knowledge of ancient Hebrew to boot yet you cannot read a simple comment in English

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.

Meaning an extinction event that this comet caused did not wipe out ALL life on this planet Showing the extinction event you claimed happened was many magnitudes larger.

I never claimed it wasn't artificially prepared.

You claimed an impossible sized flood that could wipe out all life and leave no need to geo engineer the planet

I meant processes as they are here, not where they originated from.

A process that by your rules is not natural is just that. You claimed many times anything man has a hand in is not natural. Since you revealed no life is from here that means anything that life has a hand in is not natural. Target food cannot exist.

It would still be unnatural, in process, but the food can be natural.

Your golden rule applies. target food cannot exist

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

Nope. Target food is determined by the golden rule you made up. Target food cannot exist when that rule is applied.

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

YOU have made a claim and it appears you intend not to show what you based it on. A very dishonest and low tactic used by losers. I dont expect you to withdraw your unfounded claim as you lack the moral compass to do so.

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.

You were already shown incorrect many times. If you wish to educate yourself go back to the thread and posts that you dismissed over a year ago. If you just want to play YOUR repeat game. Route closed

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

Your claim has already been tested against your rules and failed. Please refer to that test on previous pages of this thread to avoid repetition

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

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

There are no goal posts to move, as soon as the planet starts eating food, you will have an argument.

Now the planet eats food What the hell are you on about and how does that relate to my answer?

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?

The relationship is between the consumer and the food not the planet and the food.

You have had this explained already. All organic life is both food and consumer. No organic life is natural. The golden rule applies. I refer you back to all the other times this has been explained

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

I never claimed 'observable event' needs a definition. I asked you to explain your use of the term as nowhere else in the English speaking world seems to know either.

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

More precisely. You show no ability to learn at all, at any speed.

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

We have been here before and I don’t intend to repeat it. It appears you do not have the education to understand that you have made up a term that needs a description for its use in a scientific context.

Your refusal to explain its meaning within that context means you don’t know. Stop using it.

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

Fail

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. You making up things that are totally unrelated to my point is another dishonest tactic you use that later you will claim I agreed with. I don’t.

You also use the same inaccurate language that I just corrected showing you have no intention to learn from your mistake. 'closest thing' is not 'closest living relative'. It in fact describes something being close as in standing next to which in terms of evolution means nothing

Again you show you lack the moral compass to at least acknowledge the correction I gave you also proving you will never learn or admit error in anything. So your only reason for posting on this subject is as a troll.

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

First. You complain about 'the repeat game' and I don’t want to upset you

Second: I will repeat the above when you supply evidence and an argument that proves your nonsense above. Alas, you never have.

reply to post by stereologist

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

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

Pointless.

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

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

Clearly you don't have a clue.

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

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

Your proof is a book of fiction? How sad.

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

Laughable.

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

Laughable gibberish.

You do, you assume that guessing processes become fact.

Evidence posted in this thread.

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

Evidence and proof posted in this thread.

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

Straw man argument from desperation.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

I know enough to know that they both believe in intervention, which is good enough for me.

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

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

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.

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

reply to post by stereologist

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.

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

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

So then answer the question.

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

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

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

Proved wrong countless times in this thread.

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

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

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

paleohacks

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

Prove it.

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

Are you just being incredulous, because you were claiming that I never shared the facts with you.

False. Take a basic biology course and learn.

Prove it.

Pointless opinion.

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

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

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

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

Prove it.

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

You seriously could use a dictionary.

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.

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


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

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.

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

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.

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

The bible makes no mention of memories being erased. This claim is therefore a

reply to post by stereologist

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.

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

Evidence and proof already posted

Prove it.

Proof already posted.

Prove it.

Pointless comment of no relevance to the subject at hand.

Prove it.

TF long ago shown to be wrong.

Prove it.

The burden is on the claimant to support their position.

My position is supported by any and all diets.

TF is a fantasy.

Prove it.

The score is 100% failure for TF.

The patterns in target food do not fail, they are why YOU eat what you do as well.

Nor am I going to repeat the overwhelming evidence against.

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

False.

I just posted proof.

TF has no merit. It is repeatedly shown to be wrong. You can't even get diets right

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

No such concept has been needed to easily refute TF. This is the sort of dopey excuse made by failures like Pye and Sitchin.

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

You appear to be confused about anything discussed in this thread.


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

Irrelevant fantasy.


observed patterns in diets are by no means an opinion.

Irrelevant.


As you can see, your wrong again.

Pointless word game being used by a failed position.


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

Pointless claim being made by a failed position.

Prove it.

Posting nonsense is not the purpose of this forum no matter how strongly you cling to that position.

There is nothing non sensicle about an observed event.

The odd thing is that some humans can think and spell. Others hope that their drivel can somehow be worked out despite the poor wording, bad grammar, multitude of misspellings, incorrect word choice, and incoherent narrative.

We shouldn't have to guess the meaning of a vomit of words. That is what we often deal with.

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

As often suggested, take a basic course in biology when you get to high school and learn.

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

Evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is the observed change. Evolution is not a force, or intent, or any of those things often claimed by creationists. Take a basic course in biology when you get to high school and learn.

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

Pointless commentary.

You will never run out of dots.

That's the sort of mantra spoken by liars called creationist lecturers. They are close minded fools that refuse to examine the evidence in favor of their bronze age fairy tale called the bible.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is well tested and resilient.

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

Only one person, and definitely not tooth, has presented any science suggesting an issue with evolution. After a lengthy and interesting discussion it was determined that the article did not pose evidence against evolution.

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

And you believe only you can draw valid meaning from the bible and without knowledge of ancient Hebrew to boot yet you cannot read a simple comment in English

Maybe its you with the proor skills.

Meaning an extinction event that this comet caused did not wipe out ALL life on this planet Showing the extinction event you claimed happened was many magnitudes larger.

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

I never clai

reply to post by colin42

I never claimed it wasn't artificially prepared.

You claimed an impossible sized flood that could wipe out all life and leave no need to geo engineer the planet

Thats right, learn how to read.

A process that by your rules is not natural is just that. You claimed many times anything man has a hand in is not natural. Since you revealed no life is from here that means anything that life has a hand in is not natural. Target food cannot exist.

Thats false, Target Food is a relationship between the consumer and the food, not the planet and the food.

Your golden rule applies. target food cannot exist

The process to get it here, or to grow is unnatural but the the food is natural.

Nope. Target food is determined by the golden rule you made up. Target food cannot exist when that rule is applied.

False.

YOU have made a claim and it appears you intend not to show what you based it on. A very dishonest and low tactic used by losers. I dont expect you to withdraw your unfounded claim as you lack the moral compass to do so.

Quit being so dishonest.

You were already shown incorrect many times. If you wish to educate yourself go back to the thread and posts that you dismissed over a year ago. If you just want to play YOUR repeat game. Route closed

Prove it.

Your claim has already been tested against your rules and failed. Please refer to that test on previous pages of this thread to avoid repetition

Target food can still be native to a consumer if they are from the same place.

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

Previously posted.

Now the planet eats food What the hell are you on about and how does that relate to my answer?

That would be the claim YOUR making.

You have had this explained already. All organic life is both food and consumer. No organic life is natural. The golden rule applies. I refer you back to all the other times this has been explained

Either way, target food can exist if it followed the consumer.

I never claimed 'observable event' needs a definition. I asked you to explain your use of the term as nowhere else in the English speaking world seems to know either.

It's an event thats observed, honeslty if you need help figuring that out, how did you ever come to believe in evolution.

More precisely. You show no ability to learn at all, at any speed.

That would be because no one on here is teaching me anything that I didn't already know.

We have been here before and I don’t intend to repeat it. It appears you do not have the education to understand that you have made up a term that needs a description for its use in a scientific context.

Your refusal to explain its meaning within that context means you don’t know. Stop using it

It doesn't matter, you also have problems with existing well established terms, like natural.

Fail

Yes you did.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. You making up things that are totally unrelated to my point is another dishonest tactic you use that later you will claim I agreed with. I don’t.

You also use the same inaccurate language that I just corrected showing you have no intention to learn from your mistake. 'closest thing' is not 'closest living relative'. It in fact describes something being close as in standing next to which in terms of evolution means nothing

Again you show you lack the moral compass to at least acknowledge the correction I gave you also proving you will never learn or admit error in anything. So your only reason for posting on this subject is as a troll.

That would be false, the reason I'm here is because a couple of members are claiming that Target Food is false, and I'm anxious to see the proof.

reply to post by colin42

First. You complain about 'the repeat game' and I don’t want to upset you

Second: I will repeat the above when you supply evidence and an argument that proves your nonsense above. Alas, you never have.

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

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Seriously...trying to reflect yourself. I know you are but what am I...What ever you say bounces of me and sticks on you!
I don't know how many users are on the tooth account but one or two have the maturity of a six year old.

FYI I was posting for the readers, not trolling for your over the top ignorance.

Well if I was wrong, someone, anyone would be pulling out that proof that shows a speceis can evolve into another species, but I don't see any.

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

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

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

How many times do you need to have explained Evolution is not about random change?

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

Another unfounded claim followed by your opinion. What are you referring too?

Clearly you don't have a clue.

No. Stereo is correct. Posting a definition does not mean you understand it. You demonstrate you don’t.

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

Your recent revelations show your take on the bible bears no resemblance to the bible. What follows is your usual rants

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

More gibberish. You have never posted evidence in support of your claim. What you have posted shows target food cannot exist.

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

You use this silly tactic often while telling everyone you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

More rubbish about pye and ranting.

Seems you intend to continue to play the repeat game even when no one else is playing.

Suggestion. Go to the religious forums and put your translations and understanding on the bible there.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

paleohacks

How does you infecting another site with your tired and failed fantasy show target food fantasy has been observed by other people? You are really funny

reply to post by flyingfish

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

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

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

reply to post by itsthetooth

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

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

The rest of your post consists of you playing the repeat game version of solitaire

reply to post by colin42

How many times do you need to have explained Evolution is not about random change?

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

Another unfounded claim followed by your opinion. What are you referring too?

Well is it unfounded , or do you not know what I'm referring to?

No. Stereo is correct. Posting a definition does not mean you understand it. You demonstrate you don’t.

You mean just like how you refuse to believe in the definition of Natural.

Your recent revelations show your take on the bible bears no resemblance to the bible. What follows is your usual rants

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

More gibberish. You have never posted evidence in support of your claim. What you have posted shows target food cannot exist.

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

You use this silly tactic often while telling everyone you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

More rubbish about pye and ranting.

Seems you intend to continue to play the repeat game even when no one else is playing.

Suggestion. Go to the religious forums and put your translations and understanding on the bible there.

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