Howling:No More Bad Wolf

Since Bad Wolf's power extends to all of time and space, why is the Doctor still faced with dangers? Where is Bad Wolf now? Bad Wolf, in the short instance it was born and destroy, would have prevented Big Bang 2, silence, etc and drop hints of all Doctor's futures to him. --222.166.181.9 22:33, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, no. That's not what happenned. All that Rose did was incinerate the Daleks and graffiti "Bad Wolf" around the universe. If she got rid of every danger all throughout time, then there would literally be no show. There would be no Time War, no Daleks, etc. This applies to the classic series just as much as to the new series.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:13, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. The problem is why wasn't it done. Moreover, Bad Wolf said specifically that she wiped out Dalek's existence in all of time and space, and yet there are Dalek in the future.--222.166.181.72 09:51, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Bad Wolf did indeed wipe out all of the Daleks that existed in time and space in that timestream, at least the Daleks that it COULD erase; as erasing all the Daleks that the Doctor had encountered before hand would have caused a massive paradox, not to mention the fact that the Cult of Skaro were in fact NOT in time or space, but the Void, which existed between or outside both the third and fourth dimensions.

And, leaving that aside, there's also the possibility that the numerous returns of the Daleks were fixed points in time that even the Bad Wolf was unable to alter without causing adverse effects. Also, it's possible that, given that the Bad Wolf was still essentially Rose, or using Rose as a conduit, it may have been limited by the capabilities of a human body, which means that there were only so many changes it could make before Rose would no longer be able to sustain it. And it was able to warn the Doctor of at least one of the times the Daleks returned. Memnarc talk to me 10:35, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it, well the Cult of Skaro was not in time and space in present but when they pop up in Manhattan and Stolen Earth and stuff, they would be in past/future, Bad Wolf only erased Daleks in present and not in all of time as she said. Bad Wolf is suppose to have power that reaches through time and she didn't do anything. She made a warning but she could have just wiped Dalek and Davros from existence...that's kind of pointless. --222.166.181.126 15:57, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Also we don't know that Rose didn't use her time vortex powers to make life easier for the Doctor in some circumstances. Just because she didn't mention it doesn't mean she couldn't have tweaked time a bit to stop some big invasions that the Doctor couldn't have prevented. 94.72.209.160talk to me 18:10, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Time is in flux. If the Bad Wolf hadn't intervened in that episode, then the Void ship would probably never have returned anyway. The Daleks would one day be in 1930s Manhattan, but they weren't yet. They were in the void. They basically didn't exist and never would exist at the time.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:01, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also, as the Doctor pointed out to Jack Harkness, the Bad Wolf was still, in many ways, Rose Tyler. She could misjudge things, like bringing Jack back to life "for all time" instead of only once. It's quite possible that she intended to get rid of the Daleks completely and thought she had done so but simply missed some of them because she didn't fully understand what she was doing. The Doctor told Jack that a Time Lord who looked into the heart of the TARDIS would become a (vengeful) god but Rose, being human, did not become a god. She had limitations, as well as being much nicer than a Time Lord would have been. --78.146.177.197talk to me 22:12, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

We know the series 1 finale daleks had been partially created using human DNA, so perhaps only those types of human converted daleks were erased from present and future (erasing them in the past would have caused a dangerous paradox) and all other types continued to survive even from that point on because they were considered another race entirely. I know, human daleks have appeared from that point on, but presumably there is just a slight difference between each race of human dalek. 178.78.81.210talk to me 17:19, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea but the Emperor was a true Dalek, not created from human DNA. --89.242.79.21talk to me 17:37, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it did we even see the dalek emperor destroyed? Rose could have dealt with him in a different way, because in the series two finale I recall Rose says that she "poured the time vortex into his head". Maybe she noticed the Emperor was different and gave him a different treatment. She had the whole time vortex on her side, so could have done absolutely anything as the Bad Wolf. Destroyed anyone, resurrected anyone, changed any parts of the timeline, there was basically no limits when she had the heart of the TARDIS running through her head. 178.78.81.210talk to me 20:45, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

if dna was how she determined who to disintergrate, then only the biological part of the daleks would have been destroyed. however, not only was their casing also destroyed but also their ships. so, it can't have been determined by dna. Imamadmad talk to me 03:10, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

This is completely random speculation, but maybe she tracked down the Daleks based on their DNA, and then destroyed everything around them. The only problem with that is that I always assumed that the Daleks in Victory of the Daleks were from Parting of the Ways, since that is the only way that the purity thing makes any sense. Not that that episode made much sense anyway.Icecreamdif talk to me 09:04, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ever since the classic series (after revelation of the daleks I think) the daleks have always been part-human. The ones in the series 1 finale might have been slightly more human or slightly more dalek in terms of DNA and that set them apart from all other types of dalek entirely. 178.78.81.210talk to me 10:55, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. In Revelation of the Daleks (and Remembrance of the Daleks), there were two types of Dalek: The cream-and-gold type resulting from Davros's experiments in Revelation (termed "Imperial" Daleks, by the time of Remembrance) and the original silver-grey type, led (usually, at least) by a black-and-gold Supreme Dalek. In Revelation, it was the cream-and-gold Daleks who were the results of Davros's use of human (or near-human) DNA and the original Daleks who turned up at the end to capture Davros. At the end of Revelation, the original Daleks expressed the intention to "recondition" Davros's new Daleks to serve the Supreme Dalek but, by the time of Remembrance, the two groups were, basically, at war with each other. The Time War era Daleks we saw resembled the "Renegade" (original) Daleks of Remembrance. Their machines (shells) resembled those of the "Renegade" Daleks and not those of the "Imperial" Daleks. The creatures within those machines did not have the electromechanical "augmentations" grafted directly into the flesh that the "Imperial" Daleks had. They had developed -- the machines had force-fields to protect them from (for example) bastic bullets and they could use artron energy for power. They must have derived something from Davros's "Imperial" Daleks, though, because they could use alien (to them) genetic material to reconstruct themselves, as the Dalek in Dalek did -- but, as shown in that story, they didn't like the results of doing so.

The genetics, however, are probably irrelevant. As stated in Utopia (and referred to above), the Bad Wolf was still basically Rose and Rose wouldn't be using "subtleties" like genetics as her criteria for getting rid of Daleks. She'd have her own mental image of what a Dalek was, based on what she'd seen (including the Emperor), and she'd use that. --89.241.68.183talk to me 14:09, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

You're right... Rose would only destroy the Daleks she had met, and she had only met the one dalek which she couldn't have killed anyway due to paradoxes, and the human-daleks. So that entire race of Daleks that she knew of would have been her main target. As it was she actually met two more types of Dalek, but because of time fluxuation that hadn't actually happened yet. 178.78.81.210talk to me 14:49, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

On a different note, I was thinking about the immortality Rose was able to give as the Bad Wolf... What if she did it to someone who hadn't been born yet? If the immortality took efect later, would it take effect when they were a baby, a sperm cell, or what? 77.86.108.251talk to me 18:25, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

If she did that, bearing in mind she was using powers gained from the vortex, it would take effect at whatever point in the person's timestream it was aimed at -- exactly as it did with Jack. The relative locations of Bad Wolf/Rose and the recipient in time wouldn't matter any more than their relative locations in space. --78.146.178.194talk to me 18:40, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Rose didn't seem to effect anything that wasn't in the present. If she did want to immortalise someone, she'd have to fly the TARDIS to their time zone using her powers and then immortalise them, so they could become an immortal sperm cell or baby or adult. 77.86.108.251talk to me 21:25, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

"Rose didn't seem to effect anything that wasn't in the present": No? "I take the words and scatter them as a message to lead myself here." She managed to plaster "Bad Wolf" all over time and space. --78.146.187.85talk to me 21:59, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

In that case, if Rose can use her powers through time, perhaps she immortalised Rex Matheson? 87.102.116.67talk to me 19:20, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

On the (seemingly likely) assumption that Rex's immortality is somehow derived from Jack's, she did -- at least indirectly. --2.101.51.85talk to me 22:05, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Looking at 78s comment about Rose being able to use her powers THROUGH time, I've been thinking. Could Jack Harkness always have been immortal? Rose brought him back for all of time, and unlike the Dalek destruction thing there would have been no paradoxes in making him immortal from the moment he was born. In fact it might be an explanation for the two missing years from Jack's life - someine discovering his immortality. We know that Jack does age, and presumably it has been timed exactly right for him to one day become the Face of Boe, so it's possible he was always an immortal. 94.72.237.220talk to me 17:38, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

It took him hundreds of years to grow his first gray hair. If he was born as a baby, then it would have taken him thousands of years, perhaps more, to grow into the age that we saw him at in The Empty Child.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:27, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Also, when they first met (in The Empty Child), the Doctor apparently noticed nothing very unusual about Jack, beyond the fact that he was a time traveller. By the time they met again (in Utopia), the Doctor couldn't help noticing Jack was a fixed point -- and neither could the TARDIS! I'm not sure Icecreamdif is right about how long it would have taken Jack to reach adulthood -- it depends on details that we don't know about how his immortality works -- but it's irrelevant, anyway: the difference in Jack that was made by Rose/Bad Wolf took effect at the point in his timestream when he revived after being exterminated. I think Rose/Bad Wolf could have effected the change at some other point in time but she'd no need to -- what she was aiming at could be done there and then. --89.242.72.109talk to me 08:31, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, as mentioned earlier on, most likely Rose didn't even intend to make Jack a fixed point. She just thought she'd got this resurrection power that only works once and had to aim it at a point in time after his death. As it is, it wouldn't make a difference. And while still on the topic: Icecreamdif, how do you know Jack wasn't just joking or exaggerating about his grey hair? I remember when he said that he was with a mortal and wanted to reassure them that he wasn't always going to be alive. Are there other more evident cases of Jack confirming his aging? 94.72.237.220talk to me 20:25, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

He told the Doctor that he was starting to grey in Last of the Time Lords, and in that context it wouldn't have made sense for him to be joking. He was asking the Doctor what would happen if he continued to age, slowly, for all of eternity. That's where we get the Face of Boe theory from.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:51, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Jack was asking for information about something that seemed to bother him and he was asking the nearest thing to an expert that he knew of. As Icecreamdif says, it wouldn't make sense for him to be joking, so I think we have to accept that he does age, although very slowly. --89.240.242.57talk to me 07:20, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

What Icecreamdif said about aging certainly makes absolutely no sense and we should completely ignore it...otherwise the Doctor's flackback of the Master and himself on Galifrey when they looked into the Time Vortex would have to depict them not only not as the young children they were but as toddler or foetuses...---222.166.181.202talk to me 02:21, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

222: Icecreamdif has said more than one thing about aging. I assume you're referring to his contribution of 19:27, January 25, 2012 (UTC). I agree that that's a fairly wild and unsupported assumption -- but you should have specified which of Icecreamdif's comments you were disagreeing with. When I looked back to see what you were on about, I initially thought you were a perfect idiot because his contribution of 20:51, February 3, 2012 (UTC) makes plenty of sense. Going from Jack's aging to that of the Master, however, is a non-sequitur. One is a human who's been made effectively unkillable by the intervention of Rose/Bad Wolf. The other is a Time Lord whose maturation/aging seems to have been normal for his species. Neither tells us anything about the other. So, you're not a perfect idiot after all -- as Ace used to say, "Nobody's perfect." --89.241.65.89talk to me 03:27, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with my assumption. I was responding to 94's suggestion that Jack has always been immortal, which is a very ridiculous assumption. Given the fact that it has taken Jack hundreds of years to grow his first gray hair, he clearly ages much more slowly than the average person. Otherwise, he would look very ancient by now. If he had always been immortal, then it would have taken him a very very long time to grow from infanthood to adulthood, a condition strange enough that he probably would have noticed it. Therefore, we can safely assume that he was perfectly mortal until the end of Parting of the Ways. Was I not clear the first time, or do you consider part of that argument to be "a fairly wild and unsupported assumption?"Icecreamdif talk to me 15:41, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

The assumption is that growing up is the same as growing old. In the words of the song, "It ain't necessarily so." --89.242.67.155talk to me 22:39, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Even so, Jack didn't exactly look like he was 18 in The Empty Child. He had clearly grown up and started the process of growing old. Besides, Jack didn't revive on Satellite 5 until Rose did the whole Bad Wolf thing. Compare that to the mere seconds it took him to revive when exterminated in Journey's End. Jack was dead, and he was staying dead when he was exterminated in Parting of the Ways because he wasn't immortal yet. It wasn't until Rose revived him that he came back to life and became immortal.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:37, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

well, Icecreamdif, what you said makes as much sense as saying we should usually either mostly very young/old looking Sontarans or Timelords or many other alien species; Liz 10 shown even human can freeze aging; so any assumption about aging is just plain non-sensical, you really should stop your theories and all those "I didn't bother to check but..." comments --222.166.181.112talk to me 07:13, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

222, jack had not shown or mentioned any signs of unusual aging prior to the last of the timelords. anyway, if his aging wasn't normal before parting of ways, why would he have bothered mentioning it later? and do you know how much time it would take if everyone had to doubble check all their facts prior to posting here? as long as other's memories can be used to confirm the fact, i think it's fine for people to mention facts that they maybe only half remember here if you warn that your memory might not be right first so others CAN confirm/deny it. i know i have done it before, and people are very good at pointing out if i remember incorrectly. Imamadmad talk to me 10:17, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

I also wasn't using an "I didn't bother to check but..." comment here, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about that here. I know that I've used those in plenty of other places but, as Imamadmad said, it would take a ridiculous amount of time if I had to rewatch every episode of the show before posting here. Anyway, you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not dumb, and I just haven't explained clearly. People wouldn't have to always be very old or young looking if they were born immortal like Jack. People could look like they are middle aged, but by the time they appear that way, they will actually be billions of years old. Unless you're assuming that Jack has always been immortal, and immortal people just age at the same rate as everyone else until they hit 40, at which point they begin to age so slowly that they don't even get a gray hair for about 150 years, your theory doesn't make any sense. Every explanation that either show has ever given us for Jack's immortality has shown that he was a normal mortal human until Parting of the Ways. Icecreamdif talk to me 16:18, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

haha, you still don't get it, Icecreamdif? "People could look like they are middle aged, but by the time they appear that way, they will actually be billions of years old." There is absolutely no support for that and yet you look at it as a fact and refuse to, or at least selectively, read what the rest of us say. From what we saw, almost all aliens and genetically/biological modified humans/near-humans in Doctor Who behave exactly opposite to that, and plenty of examples are given above.

You should try to post comments that have factual basis or agree with what we saw, the speculative element should be restricted to what didn't appear on-screen. Constantly fictionalizing what was shown is quite counter-productive. --222.166.181.68talk to me 17:05, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, we're not talking about aliens or genetically/biological modified humans/near humans. We are talking about Jack, who is a unique case (except for Rex). We have never seen any Sontarans that looked young or old, but given their life spans they would probably have the oppossite problem. They probably only stay young for a few months at most (and wouldn't be sent into battle until they'e old enough to fight which is why we haven't seen any baby Sontarans), and they would probably appear old if any of them lived to 15 or so, but they usually die in battle before then. Given their ability to regenerate, Time Lords are a completely nonsensical example to list here. Liz 10, for example, just had her aging slowed down after she reached a certain age. Jack's aging didn't slow down until he was ressurected by Rose. He certainly would noticed if he aged differently than normal humans in the 51st century, and he certainly seemed to connect his slow agin to his immortality in the 21st century. Even if you want to ignore the fact that he ages differently, you still have to explain why he failed to ressurect in Parting of the Ways before Rose made him immortal, and why he always describes that episode as the moment he became immortal. Wasn't there a Torchwood episode where he said that that was the one time he really died? There's also the fact that if we assume that being made immortal means that Jack was always immortal, we also have to assume that Rex was always immortal. However, if Rex was always immortal, then he would have been made mortal by the miracle, and would have died when he was impaled in the first episode of Miracle Day. You'd also think that Jack would notic if he'd gone the first few decades of his life with all of his injuries instantly healing. Unlike Beth Halloran, for example, Jack lived a lifestyle that would likely have resulted in him sustaining many noticable injuries. If he had healed from all of them, he would have noticed that something was up long before his extermination.Icecreamdif talk to me 18:20, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Beth Halloran (the "sleeper agent" in Torchwood: Sleeper) was also protected from noticing such things by being prevented from remembering incidents that would undermine her belief in her cover story. Jack isn't. As far as anyone knows, the two years of his memory that the Time Agency wiped is his only period of such amnesia. --89.240.252.32talk to me 19:01, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Icecreamdif, you really should check your facts. I don't understand why you have to constantly make up things and assume them to be facts. You keep saying that you don't have to time to rewatch the things and you don't remember the details but if you even bother to read the article on Jack in this wiki then you would clearly know that Jack is effectively genetically/biologically modified humans/near humans as 51st century humans are not the same as 21st Century humans. Jack does sustain injuries, so I have no idea where your entire argument comes from, moreover Jack's first appearance already showed us how 51st century allows speedy automatically healing. What you said basically contradicts with everything we have seen. Your examples also completely contradicts your theory. According to you individuals would be expected to age proportionally, which would make your Sontaran example invalid. We also know the number of incarnation of the Doctor so it is clear that the scene on Gallifrey is the first Doctor not any regenerated Doctor. The Liz 10 part is just plain nonsense...so what you are saying is that Liz can stop aging at a certain age, but Jack can't slow down aging because you think so?

The other stuff you said are pretty illogical too...Jack noticed he stopped aging after over hundred of years really does not mean he should realize it in a few years. Can you give us your evidence that Jack ages like a 21st Century individual or indication of Jack's exact age when he was on Satellite 5? Your assumptions aren't even reasonable let alone lacking any information to back them. --222.166.181.208talk to me 00:59, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the topic of this discussion is "No More Bad Wolf", not "Beat up Icecreamdif", however much fun that might be. It's fair enough to argue against ideas you don't think are well founded but this is now going OTT. --89.242.69.25talk to me 20:07, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Fun? Well, I'll take your word for it. Anyway, I still don't understand why you keep bringing up the fact that I don't always rewatch episodes before I post things. At no point in this discussion have I ever said that I don't remember an episode well, and I do remember most of the details from Parting of the Ways and the other relevant episodes. Jack may be a near-human, but before Parting of the Ways, that likely just meant that not all of his ancestors were Human (which Cassandra suggested was the norm in the future). Maybe you should go rewatch some episodes, because your statement that "Jack does sustain injuries" is simply not true. I don't know if you saw Miracle Day, but Jack realized that he was mortal again once his wounds failed to instantly heal. If his wounds were healing themselves all the time before Parting of the Ways, he would have noticed that something was up. Speedy automatic healing was possible in the future, but the Chula nanogenes had a very visible effect, and were likely only available to him at the time because he was on a Chula ship. He must have suffered injuries outside of his ship in times when nanogenes would not be available, and would have found it odd if he was injured in Pompei and still healed. You're the one who brought up Sontarans, which really have nothing to do with this conversation (and Jack's immortality really has nothing to do with the original topic of this discussion anyway). I'm still a bit confused by what you're arguing though. Are you suggesting that even a mortal human in the 51st century would look the same at age 40 as he does at age 150? Every time that Jack has ever discussed his aging, he has made it clear that the only reason that he's stopped aging because he is now immortal. Since you insist that I need to watch episodes again before I talked about them, I rewatched the end of Last of the Time Lords. After asking the Doctor about his immortality Jack asks about aging, saying that he can't die but he keeps gettig older, finding the odd little gray hair. If he was aging at a normal pace, with no access to 51st century technology, then he would be a decrepit old man by the 21st century. In Day One (which I also rewatched), Jack and Alice have a conversation about Jack's immortality, and Alice talks about his agelessness as if its part of his immortality. Jack then points out that he found a gray hair, and Alice seems surprised and amused. Now, this definetly suggests that his (near)-agelessness is a result of his immortality, and not of 51st century technology. That means that Jack either aged at a normal rate until Parting of the Ways, or Jack was actually ridciculously old in The Empty Child and just never noticed that he never aged normally. In Everything Changes (which yes, I also rewatched the relevant scenes of), Jack says that he was killed, and brought back to life, and ever since then he can't die. Every episode where Jack's immortality has been discussed has made it clear that Jack gained immortality when Rose brought him back to life. She brought him back to life, and then he stayed alive, but she had no reason to make him immortal in the past since she knew that he (obviously) didn't die in the past. And although you have attacked pretty much every piece of evidence that I have given on this, you have not provided any evidence that he has always been immortal. Icecreamdif talk to me 23:35, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

1. Post-Ninth Doctor Jack only heals severe injuries instantly. It has always been made clear that Jack's minor injuries never heal instantly and we have seen Jack with minor injuries all the time. It's not just the fact that you didn't check even the articles available on this wiki but you keep on bringing up things that never happened or things that you "remember wrong". 2. The point is that he would not notice if he were immortal before then, and it was made quite clear it the original post brought up by whoever it was. Everyone's quite clear on it. All these things you said are absolutely irrelevant; they are what Jack thinks. 3. If you care to read what other people wrote then you would clearly see that "Jack noticed he stopped aging after over hundred of years really does not mean he should realize it in a few years." Neither has you answered the question concerning Jack's exact age. and no, it's not fun, it's stupid that someone keeps making up fictional information.--222.166.181.32talk to me 23:55, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Icrecreamdif: I was the one who posted "Please note that the topic ..." etc. but not the one who "insist[s] that [you] need to watch episodes again before [you] talk about them". I also didn't say I thought beating you up was fun -- I only implied that it looked as if others did. If you're going to be as careless as that about who said what when it's on a screen in front of you, I'll start beating you up! And not for fun. In fact, I, personally, don't insist on you double-checking episodes. Several times, in various topics, I've been able to confirm that you'd remembered correctly. (The most recent was the date of the MIB ceasing operations.) If you're going to start shooting back, please take aim first. --89.242.77.225talk to me 00:11, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the episode checking thing is originally brought up by icecreamdif's previous comments that constantly bring up "I didn't bother to check but..." and then say something that he/she is completely unsure of and/or is completely fictional. We all know things well enough that we don't have to check and sometimes we are wrong but certain people who use this as an excuse to bring up fictional information extremely frequently and integrate these information into their arguments as if they were the truth would turn the forum into a fan-fiction forum in the long-run. Moreover, those certain people should try to read what other people have written instead of keep taking side in an argument that never existed, keep going back to saying that Jack didn't realize something when the original topic is that Jack wouldn't have realized just shows how much you understand about what everyone's talking.--222.166.181.170talk to me 00:40, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

222: Like the Doctor's comment on the nature of time in Blink, that started well but degenerated. In particular, it's a trifle unclear who's meant by "you" in the tail end of it. There also seems to be an "about" missing before the final full stop (the final period, to Americans). One thing it does make clear, however, is that things have got too heated and need to be cooled down. Matters will not be improved by making it unclear whose contributions are being disagreed with, because that will simply result in several people shooting back unnecessarily. In short: Cool it! --89.242.77.225talk to me 00:53, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

ok, fact one, jack ages slower than normal humans. proof: utopia, that episode where he was burried for about 2000 years (forgot what it was called), in fact, any episode which mentions his longevity is proof that he ages slower than normal humans. fact two, in last of the time lords, jack mentions he is aging at some speed (ie he's not not aging) and asks the doctor about his future. assumption from these facts, the speed of jacks aging has changed since the last time he saw the doctor, or he either would have mentioned it then or not at all. if the speed of his changing had not changed, why would he have waited to ask the doctor about it? wouldn't he have noticed earlier in his life and asked, for example, his highschool teacher why he still looked like a kindergartner?

fact three, when jack is immortal, all wounds heal almost instantly as mentioned in miracle day. however, wounds healed normally when he was mortal, yet again as seen in miracle day. assumption, if he was immortal and healing super fast ever since he was born, people would have started asking questions. what kid can survive primary school without a single cut or scratch? and how many people NEVER get sick? and a job as a time agent must leave some scars. it would be noticeable in that line of work if injuries, no matter how severe, healed almost instantaneously. and once these things were noticed, questions would be asked, investigations done, and his immortality would probably been revealed many years previously. unless that's what happened in the years of the missing memories.

any fault in those explanations, please explain clearly. i honestly can't make out what some of you (mostly anon ip 222.) are trying to argue. are there any ways where, based solely on facts, we can prove that jack was always immortal, or any other ways where we can prove that jack became immortal the moment he was resurrected by the bad wolf that i forgot to include? Imamadmad talk to me 09:58, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Imamadmad, if you read the above comments then you should notice that everything you said has been answered, and please observe http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/MacGuffin3/1x04Cyberwoman-01535.jpg. It has long been established that Jack only instantly heal severe wounds as mentioned on above comments and the article on Jack on this wiki. Please do not keep ignoring others comments and going back to something that has been refuted pretending you are illiterate. You must have skipped over a lot of the comments in order for you to still be talking what you were talking. --222.166.181.252talk to me 11:49, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Since Imamadmad would likely skip the aging part too, and it's stupid to keep posting something over and over again in the same thread, please just read the above comments and notice that the argument never had anything to do with Jack noticing his aging, that is just something that icecreamdif came up that's logically flawed in all aspects to argue against the immortal since beginning brought up by another user. --222.166.181.1talk to me 11:55, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

89, I didn't mean to attack you earlier. Apart from asking what was fun, which wasn't really meant to be taken anymore seriously than when you suggested that attacking me was fun, the rest of my comments were focused at 222. 222, will you please stop attacking everyone who disagrees with you. You can explain why you think that we're wrong, but you don't need to insult everyone else. Anyway, I still don't think that you've really refuted the aging thing. The way Jack talks about his aging process, it doesn't seem like he ages at a normal 51st century rate, so so it seems like his aging didn't slow down until Parting of the Ways. It seems that you were right that Jack doesn't heal minor injuries. I'm sure that Imamadmad will apologize for not watching every episode of Torchwood to check. Anyway, do you really think that Jack never suffered any major injuries before The Empty Child. Most real people who don't go on ridiculous adventures like Jack break a bone or suffer a serious burn or have some kind of injuury that would be serious enough for an immortal to heal. Wasn't there an episode where Jack said that he was in an alien prison with his friend for a while? We know that he's been to Pompeii, World War II, been on his planet during an alien attack, and spent 5 years living with John. That's just the small bits of his pre=immortal life that we know. There is no way that he never sufferred an injury that was so serious that it would have healed if he was immortal. Also, while me and a few others have offered proof that Jack became immortal in Parting of the Ways (some of which you haven't even attempted to refute yet), the most evidence that anyone has given that Jack was always immortal was the first post that suggested that theory, which was little more than "It's possible that Jack was always immortal since we have no evidence that he's not." Do you have any actual evidence to support this theory?Icecreamdif talk to me 20:31, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is turning into the "Who is Kovarian?" one all over again... 87.194.125.216talk to me 22:01, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

87: You dared to conflict with my edit, just to say that? Bah!

Icecreamdif: OK. In future, though, when you switch targets, you should say so, to avoid misunderstandings. As you may have noticed, I'm not slow to say I disagree with suggestions (assuming I do disagree, that is) but I agree with you here: 222 needs to attack the suggestions themselves, not the people making them. On the "always immortal" thing, I think it's a wrong idea. I've given reasons before, mainly that the Doctor would have noticed in The Empty Child if Jack had been a "fixed point" then. I don't think you (Icecreamdif) are right that he'd have taken an unusual time to grow up, because growing up is not the same as growing old. Also, Jack's biological processes have not all been affected in the same way. As we've noted, he's aging only very slowly. As we've also noted, he heals extremely rapidly, from severe injuries, at least. Other processes seem to be occurring at the normal rate for humans -- or, at least, the rate isn't abnormal enough to be remarked on -- processes such as digestion, breathing, etc. We can't simply extrapolate by saying, "this process is drastically slowed, so that process will also be drastically slowed," because there's too much contrary evidence. -- (I was 89 but my IP address may have changed again) 89.242.67.151talk to me 22:24, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get how Icecreamdif still dwells in irrelevant points. The topic has always been it's possible that Jack has always been immortal, so I don't get how you ended up with another topic. Jack appears to be an adult, we don't know his age, he discovered he's still relatively young after over a hundred year without contact with 51st Century technology. If you were a person with amnesia and assumed to not be an old person by the standard of your group, noticing you aged slowly after over a hundred years is sensible, but not noticing that you have aged slowly in a decade after you reached adulthood is perfectly reasonable for any individual even in 21st century, let alone someone in an era with biological age halting technology. Can you provide a reason why he should notice since it is much more normal for people past adulthood to only notice aging after they have reached a certain age? Do we even know what Jack's age?

According to what you said about how Jack should have been seriously injured a lot, what you are suggesting is that the Doctor should regenerate every 3 episodes since it wouldn't make sense if he didn't; and the Doctor, being over 900 years old even if he had to subject to a life threatening injury every 20 years despite that he does these adventures everyday would statistically be likely to be on his 1800th regeneration, not 11th. The companions, who are often nothing more than untrained civilians from ancient Earth comparing to a time agent from distant future should die every episode as "there [would be] no way that [they] never suffered an injury that was so serious" that is life-threatening and would trigger healing if they were Jack. Moreover, what you said simply doesn't even make sense on any logical level, how does going to prison and living with a co-worker even remotely imply that you should suffer life threatening wounds.

Your entire argument about denying the possibility that Jack could be immortal since the beginning rests on the tautology that Jack must know he is immortal if he were one. Jack made it quite clear that he only realized his he cannot die after being killed again at least more than 20 years after the Satellite 5 incidence, so it's quite senseless to assume that he should notice anything unusual if he were immortal since the very beginning. You really should get your facts straight, and I have no idea why Imamadmad should apologize for not watching every episode of Torchwood to check when you are the first person who suggested it despite we see Jack getting hurt all the time in Torchwood and you kept using the fictional pieces of information repeatedly as your "proofs" even after people have asked you to just check Jack's article on this wiki. If you keep using fictional information you made up as facts to support your arguments, people who have read them and didn't bother to check will treat them as facts and you will mislead a lot of people and turn this forum into something that discusses your fictional series instead of Doctor Who. The frequency of you quoting and using these fictional information is so extreme that there are very few of your comments that are based on anything actually in the series. --222.166.181.1talk to me 22:41, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

89's point about Doctor not noticing fixed point is sensible though. The most Bad Wolf could do would be to ensure Jack was alive up until Bad Wolf and the fixed point identity must have came after. --222.166.181.105talk to me 22:48, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Rose/Bad Wolf wouldn't need "to ensure Jack was alive up until Bad Wolf". She resurrected Jack because he'd been alive until then. If he hadn't been, the situation wouldn't have arisen or, perhaps, she'd have resurrected someone else. --89.242.67.151talk to me 23:48, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Note the words, "the most Bad Wolf could do"; Kazran's personality is a similar situation of the hypothetical possibility...though on a side note, something peculiar popped up suddenly when I was on youtube that's not canon "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQrY0HrNjdQ". John Barrowman actually said the ending of Miracle Day (at least what he interprets) as Jack's immortality is not caused by Bad Wolf...That's pretty much the same amount of credibility we got for the identity of the Face of Boe. It is a very odd and unexpected comment, and it certainly wasn't that explicit in Miracle Day.--222.166.181.90talk to me 00:15, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

My point wasn't what Rose/Bad Wolf could or couldn't do. My point was that it's irrelevant whether she could do that or not. What we've been told about the Bad Wolf powers suggests she could have done all kinds of things that she didn't do -- and they're irrelevant, too, because she didn't do them. On your side note, I'm not persuaded that we should take much note of John Barrowman's interpretation. If it had been Russell T. Davies saying it, that might be different -- he's the writer, the source of the ideas -- but even then, it would be open to him or another writer to put into an episode (of either show) an explicit statement that it is caused by Rose/Bad Wolf. Indeed, Utopia got pretty close to exactly that. The only "out" from what was said in Utopia is the possibility that the Doctor was mistaken. --89.242.67.151talk to me 00:32, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't either, but I was just posting the link because it's unusual. On the other hand, back on topic, to the best of my knowledge, the topic started as an "is it possible" topic so the entire discussion has always been about if it were possible that Bad Wolf could have done something to allow for the scenario until Icecreamdif's weird tautology happened...--222.166.181.168talk to me 00:48, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

The topic started as "Why didn't...?", not "Is it possible..?". Given what we know of the Bad Wolf powers, the answer to "Is it possible..?" is very likely to be "yes" unless the thing involves some self-contradiction. For example, Bad Wolf couldn't make a red star that emitted light only in the blue part of the spectrum. That's not because a star that emitted light only in the blue part of the spectrum isn't possible. It's because it wouldn't be what's meant by "red". Such a question, with one obvious answer, isn't very worth pursuing. The question "Why didn't...?" is more interesting. It raises issues of motivation, etc. If you think you can pull the discussion back to the original question, the way to do it is to discuss the original question, not to prolong discussion of another contributor's opinions by attacking them yet again. --89.242.67.151talk to me 01:13, February 20, 2012 (UTC)