It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 335
31
<< 332  333  334    336  337  338 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Like I said a million times there haven't been any links or information that was factual. I'm reading it, but questioning if you actually are. If you read them correctly you would find they are fake, and made up hypothesis.


Then point out how our evidence is wrong. So far you failed horribly every single time you tried...like when you made the ridiculous claim that there's no "target food" for humans





Really, you honestly believe that, just like how no one can produce a single example of target food for humans, but I'm debunked right, or how Persinger your saying has made up his findings. Sure, where is your proof its honestly looking more like your debunked. You can lie to your self all you want but I'm a tad smarter.


There you go...starting with the "target food" nonsense again even after having had that claim debunked over and over and over and over again


Bananas are perfect target food, so are potatoes, or meat, or rice, or ... the planet is FULL of target food for crying out loud!!




You see Pye doesn't mention the bible, but he may not know it, his findings match the bible. So your trying to tell me its just one great big coincidence.


It doesn't matter if it's a coincidence or not given that neither Pye's claims nor the bible are objective evidence. If it sounds familiar, he probably did it so he can sell more books to gullible religious people.




The bible was accurate


This repeating that blunder?


Look, I posted links highlighting over 400 cases in which the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, so saying it's accurate is a great demonstration of blind faith and ignorance.

You look silly too saying it's accurate after having seen those links listing hundreds of cases where the bible isn't accurate. All you accomplish is to show off your ignorance and blind faith





I'm also seeing a new trend here, as my sources grow in numbers, you are just quick to state that they are either false or can't be considered factual. In other words everyone else is wrong and your right. Sorry man, your looking more like a fool, and its just getting worse.


Look, it's really simple:

I post links with OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back up my claims, you post pseudo-scientific information that either has ZERO evidence or that's super easy to debunk for anyone who ever had basic science.

It's amazing to watch your completely ignore objective evidence




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Tooth has never tried to discuss this or anything else which is why he garners no respect. The title is misleading but that change was not in my control.
I have to explained this about 8 times now. I'm saying that it could have just as easily have been a creator that created all the diversity.
Nope. You have said many times it could have, might have but you have never explained anything. There is a big difference and a science major should know that. You dont.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, you need to provide objective evidence to prove your claims...just once
Thats funny because your the one that actually hasn't presented objective evidence. All evidence I have been pointed to is false.




We already went over the article a few pages back and pointed out that no where in the article do they claim telepathy is no a fact...thread titles are merely there to catch attention.
Well ATS is not the only place that article showed up and they once again called telepathy a fact, so your wrong once again.

Correction, there is more than one other site addressing it as such.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

forum.davidicke.com...

newbuddhist.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.dreamviews.com...

Including ATS there are over 5 sites quoting it as such, so your wrong once again.
edit on 30-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, you need to provide objective evidence to prove your claims...just once
Thats funny because your the one that actually hasn't presented objective evidence. All evidence I have been pointed to is false.




We already went over the article a few pages back and pointed out that no where in the article do they claim telepathy is no a fact...thread titles are merely there to catch attention.
Well ATS is not the only place that article showed up and they once again called telepathy a fact, so your wrong once again.


Which one of my claims has been proven wrong? You're the one repeating nonsense over and over again even after being proven wrong...like when it comes to that ridiculous "target food" hogwash you spread around.

Link the article, and show me where they say telepathy has been proven. Persinger's experiments were also never replicated...those who tried failed every single time. That goes not only for his "god helmet" hypothesis, but also that "telepathy". Most of his "results" can be explained through faulty experimental setups and the suggestibility of participants.




Including ATS there are over 5 sites quoting it as such, so your wrong once again.


Yes, and every single source you listed is speculating without providing any concrete objective evidence. Most of them are shining examples of pseudo-science.

edit on 30-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Like I said a million times there haven't been any links or information that was factual. I'm reading it, but questioning if you actually are. If you read them correctly you would find they are fake, and made up hypothesis.
Like everyone has said a million times you reject without discussion or putting forward a reasoned argument. As for reading the links correctly you really mean selectively.

I have a question. A while back did you say you were a speed reader?


Really, you honestly believe that, just like how no one can produce a single example of target food for humans, but I'm debunked right, or how Persinger your saying has made up his findings. Sure, where is your proof its honestly looking more like your debunked. You can lie to your self all you want but I'm a tad smarter.
Quite simply there is no such thing as target food. It is something you have made up which is all you do.


The problem that your faced with here is two fold. You see Pye doesn't mention the bible, but he may not know it, his findings match the bible. So your trying to tell me its just one great big coincidence. Sorry I don't buy it. The bible was accurate, as Pye's findings reflects. I'm also seeing a new trend here, as my sources grow in numbers, you are just quick to state that they are either false or can't be considered factual. In other words everyone else is wrong and your right. Sorry man, your looking more like a fool, and its just getting worse.
So you bring up Persinger who says he may have found evidence for telepathy, who also says it is to do with the magnetic forces of THIS planet. Evidence that we are from here if it has any validity at all? So animals also may have this and that is your sources growing in numbers? One person in 300 pages? You see that as a trend?

The only trend here is your tall tales, outright lies and fantasy instead of evidence.


edit on 30-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Then point out how our evidence is wrong. So far you failed horribly every single time you tried...like when you made the ridiculous claim that there's no "target food" for humans
First of all there is not, so your wrong on the target food again. Second, I have posted and reposted a dozen times the very link about evolution evidence, which claims in itself that evolution is a hypothetical theory.

I didn't have to debunk evolution, it debunked itself.




There you go...starting with the "target food" nonsense again even after having had that claim debunked over and over and over and over again

Bananas are perfect target food, so are potatoes, or meat, or rice, or ... the planet is FULL of target food for crying out loud!!
Seeing how your the first person to even give any examples, your wrong again. People have failed to answer because there is no answer. First off the foods you listed are NOT target foods. You think I'm asking for foods that we can simply eat. You failed to understand the whole meaning of the term target.

None of the foods you listed are a nescessity and with the process that meat goes through to be eaten, you can't consider it natural. So your examples are failed.




It doesn't matter if it's a coincidence or not given that neither Pye's claims nor the bible are objective evidence. If it sounds familiar, he probably did it so he can sell more books to gullible religious people.
Which is a nice little story, but like I have pointed out a dozen times, THERE ARE NO BOOKS TO BUY.. Pye hasn't published any books on these findings, so your WRONG.




This repeating that blunder?

Look, I posted links highlighting over 400 cases in which the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, so saying it's accurate is a great demonstration of blind faith and ignorance.

You look silly too saying it's accurate after having seen those links listing hundreds of cases where the bible isn't accurate. All you accomplish is to show off your ignorance and blind faith
Anyone can make claims that something is wrong, and anyone can make false claims based on just about anything that something couldn't possibly be correct. I don't see anything in that list that couldn't have been given some help from a supernatural source. Of course thats mainly the missing link in these.

You seriously look silly everytime you claim that the bible has been debunked, or Pye has been debunked. Anyone can claim to debunk anything, there is always a silver lining to looking at these problems, and I have yet to see anything debunked.




I post links with OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back up my claims, you post pseudo-scientific information that either has ZERO evidence or that's super easy to debunk for anyone who ever had basic science.

It's amazing to watch your completely ignore objective evidence
I seriously doubt if anyone merely claims to debunk something that its considered objective evidence.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Like everyone has said a million times you reject without discussion or putting forward a reasoned argument. As for reading the links correctly you really mean selectively.

I have a question. A while back did you say you were a speed reader?
Sometimes.




Quite simply there is no such thing as target food. It is something you have made up which is all you do
Of course I made it up, and it turns out to have some truth to it. I'm running 100% with every person I have asked face to face. Everyone is agreeing with me. I had to make up the idea of target food otherwise I knew it would be a bugger to try to explain but apparently with mrxyz I'm still having to explain it, its like over his head.




So you bring up Persinger who says he may have found evidence for telepathy, who also says it is to do with the magnetic forces of THIS planet. Evidence that we are from here if it has any validity at all? So animals also may have this and that is your sources growing in numbers? One person in 300 pages? You see that as a trend?

The only trend here is your tall tales, outright lies and fantasy instead of evidence.
No I disagree, I don't think he published his article to let people know he has a false claim on telepathy. And Your assuming it would work with animals. You like to assume a lot. Why don't you assume I'm correct on this one. (:



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





First of all there is not, so your wrong on the target food again. Second, I have posted and reposted a dozen times the very link about evolution evidence, which claims in itself that evolution is a hypothetical theory.

I didn't have to debunk evolution, it debunked itself.


I just listed a whole bunch of "target food": bananas, meat, fish, potatoes, rice (which the majority on the planet uses as main food), grains...

Your target food argument is beyond silly


As for evolution, you INVENTED a word: postulated hypothetical theory

You used this word to claim evolution isn't a fact...which is simply laughable and wrong...and that's besides the fact that you INVENTED your own argument





Seeing how your the first person to even give any examples, your wrong again. People have failed to answer because there is no answer. First off the foods you listed are NOT target foods. You think I'm asking for foods that we can simply eat. You failed to understand the whole meaning of the term target.

None of the foods you listed are a nescessity and with the process that meat goes through to be eaten, you can't consider it natural. So your examples are failed.



Now you make ZERO sense whatsoever


You can "just eat" a banana, and it provides you with important nutrients...which is why so many people eat it. The same goes for rice, other vegetables, and fruit. And how on earth is meat NOT natural??? How on earth is a cow not natural??? Us eating meat is the same as a lion eating a gazelle.




Which is a nice little story, but like I have pointed out a dozen times, THERE ARE NO BOOKS TO BUY.. Pye hasn't published any books on these findings, so your WRONG.


Oh really?




That's from PYE'S WEBSITE where he ADVERTISES his ebook





Anyone can make claims that something is wrong, and anyone can make false claims based on just about anything that something couldn't possibly be correct. I don't see anything in that list that couldn't have been given some help from a supernatural source. Of course thats mainly the missing link in these.


So all those hundreds of things that are demonstrably wrong in the bible are still right because "magic" made it happen? I guess you believe in purple unicorns too, because after all, magic could make that happen too





You seriously look silly everytime you claim that the bible has been debunked, or Pye has been debunked. Anyone can claim to debunk anything, there is always a silver lining to looking at these problems, and I have yet to see anything debunked.


So in your fantasy world, nothing can ever be debunked?


So in your little world there's still a possibility the earth is flat?




Everyone is agreeing with me.


This is the single greatest joke I read on ATS in at least a month

edit on 30-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I just listed a whole bunch of "target food": bananas, meat, fish, potatoes, rice (which the majority on the planet uses as main food), grains...

Your target food argument is beyond silly
Good, then if its silly you should have no problem producing some examples of target food, which you once again failed to do. None of the foods listed are a necessity and some have to be cooked or processed with again cant be a natural food.




As for evolution, you INVENTED a word: postulated hypothetical theory
No I should have placed a comma between them, it was actually from two different paragraphs.




You used this word to claim evolution isn't a fact...which is simply laughable and wrong...and that's besides the fact that you INVENTED your own argument
I didn't have to invent anything, its right off that evolution link. You should read it for yourself.




Now you make ZERO sense whatsoever
We have no food we could call necessity
It was a trick question
Only understandable if you realize the food here is not our food.




You can "just eat" a banana, and it provides you with important nutrients...which is why so many people eat it. The same goes for rice, other vegetables, and fruit. And how on earth is meat NOT natural??? How on earth is a cow not natural??? Us eating meat is the same as a lion eating a gazelle.
True but humans aren't lions and gazelles.




Oh really?
And you notice from the title of the book it has nothing to do with human genetics, that is a separate video which has nothing to do with that book.




So all those hundreds of things that are demonstrably wrong in the bible are still right because "magic" made it happen? I guess you believe in purple unicorns too, because after all, magic could make that happen too
There are forces at work in the bible that are a hell of a lot harder to believe than purple unicorns, so every time you say that, I just sort of go along with it cause its lame.




So in your fantasy world, nothing can ever be debunked?

So in your little world there's still a possibility the earth is flat?
Of course things can be debunked, but merely claiming so doesn't automatically debunk things.

I never said the earth was flat, your trying to put words in my mouth which you also do a lot of. Since you like to assume so much, why don't you just assume I'm correct.




This is the single greatest joke I read on ATS in at least a month
Every one I have asked, agrees we have no target food here. Colin is convinced we are home, but he also can't produce any target food.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


If you can't get your point across without insulting people's intelligence, your point is simply not valid. The tangible objective evidence all points to evolution. Creation is possible, but if it happened there is no evidence of this process or a creator, and evolution was used as a tool. There isn't any scientific evidence out there that suggests otherwise.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





The tangible objective evidence all points to evolution.
Barcs I just have to ask, do you actually have some tangible evidence or are you just saying that? It seems to be what evolution is lacking and I would love to sample some of this if you have any. (:



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





The tangible objective evidence all points to evolution.
Barcs I just have to ask, do you actually have some tangible evidence or are you just saying that? It seems to be what evolution is lacking and I would love to sample some of this if you have any. (:


That was posted back on page 50, and then repeated multiple times by multiple people. You simply won't accept it, so that is on you.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Good, then if its silly you should have no problem producing some examples of target food, which you once again failed to do. None of the foods listed are a necessity and some have to be cooked or processed with again cant be a natural food.


It is silly because you apply NO logic to your arguments


There is TOOOOOONS of food that requires no cooking whasoever, and you can eat meat raw too...as long as it's fresh. And all the food I listed have NECESSARY nutrients. The human species survived thousands of years on food derived from nature...so saying there's no "target food" is complete and utter nonsense. If there wasn't any target food, we would have died ages ago.




No I should have placed a comma between them, it was actually from two different paragraphs.



You'd need more than 1 comma as a "hypothetical theory" doesn't exist either


You are doing the same as a child reading a book about bears and mermaids and then claiming "bear-mermaid-men" exist just because all those words appear in the story.




I didn't have to invent anything, its right off that evolution link. You should read it for yourself.



You posted the links and quotes...and nowhere does it say "postulated hypothetical theory" or "hypothetical theory". In short, you're wrong again





We have no food we could call necessity It was a trick question Only understandable if you realize the food here is not our food.




How on earth isn't it our food if it has sustained us for THOUSANDS OF YEARS? You can live perfectly fine on raw fish and vegetables for example. No cooking required. Cooking just makes it tastier, which is why we cook it...after all, we're not (that) stupid.




True but humans aren't lions and gazelles.


But just like them we need the SAME NUTRIENTS and get it from the SAME SOURCE.




And you notice from the title of the book it has nothing to do with human genetics, that is a separate video which has nothing to do with that book.


The entire book he's holding in his hands is about the intervention hypothesis!! And for crying out loud, at least do a bit of research. For example, you could go to Amazon to check if your claim that he hasn't written a book about his "findings" in genetics is true or not.

For the record, it's not:

LINK 1

LINK 2

For the cheap price of just $26 you can get 2 amazing works of fiction...act now, limited copies remain





There are forces at work in the bible that are a hell of a lot harder to believe than purple unicorns, so every time you say that, I just sort of go along with it cause its lame.


What's your objective evidence that those "forces" exist? Do you believe it just because of the bible? If so, why?

I believe XYZ because it says so in the bible...and I believe the bible is truth...because the bible is the word of good...which I believe because it's in the bible...which is obviously the truth...and round and round and round the circular logic goes





Of course things can be debunked, but merely claiming so doesn't automatically debunk things.

I never said the earth was flat, your trying to put words in my mouth which you also do a lot of. Since you like to assume so much, why don't you just assume I'm correct.


I never said you believe the earth is flat. But you don't believe it is (at least I hope so) because SCIENCE is telling you it isn't. And that science is just as valid for the theory of evolution because both are theories that are fully backed up by objective evidence...if they weren't, they wouldn't be theories in the first place.

Please learn what a scientific theory is.

Everyone agreeing with you is a joke given that all they have to do is bite into an apple to realize you're full of # when it comes to that ridiculous target food argument

edit on 30-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It is silly because you apply NO logic to your arguments

There is TOOOOOONS of food that requires no cooking whasoever, and you can eat meat raw too...as long as it's fresh. And all the food I listed have NECESSARY nutrients. The human species survived thousands of years on food derived from nature...so saying there's no "target food" is complete and utter nonsense. If there wasn't any target food, we would have died ages ago.

Cooking food is logically not natural, but not the only thing that makes food un natural.




You'd need more than 1 comma as a "hypothetical theory" doesn't exist either

You are doing the same as a child reading a book about bears and mermaids and then claiming "bear-mermaid-men" exist just because all those words appear in the story.
If your overlooking the fact that evolution is a series of theorys.




You posted the links and quotes...and nowhere does it say "postulated hypothetical theory" or "hypothetical theory". In short, you're wrong again
Yes it does, and I'm not going to re post it, youll have to go back and see where it was copy and pasted.




How on earth isn't it our food if it has sustained us for THOUSANDS OF YEARS? You can live perfectly fine on raw fish and vegetables for example. No cooking required. Cooking just makes it tastier, which is why we cook it...after all, we're not (that) stupid.
Omg, your kidding me, you did not just write that. We don't cook for taste, what a joke, we cook to kill bacteria and parasites, which is even yet another clue that it's not our food.




But just like them we need the SAME NUTRIENTS and get it from the SAME SOURCE.
No I don't eat wild animals like they do, do you?

The covers to these books aren't the same as the first one you posted, and no where does it say that its fiction. Are you sure your not making more assumptions?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





For the cheap price of just $26 you can get 2 amazing works of fiction...act now, limited copies remain
So if your so sure that his motives are to sell books, why is it on his human genetics video there is no mention of a book much less anyway to buy one? I think your wrong.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Cooking food is logically not natural, but not the only thing that makes food un natural.


ALL our food is natural.


Why? Because it's ALL coming from this very planet.




If your overlooking the fact that evolution is a series of theorys.


Which by the very definition of "theory" are fully backed up by objective evidence, peer reviewed, and testable





Yes it does, and I'm not going to re post it, youll have to go back and see where it was copy and pasted.


Here are the links you posted:

LINK 1
LINK 2

And here's your reply: LINK

Nowhere in the links you provided do the words "postulated hypothetical theory" or "hypothetical theory" appear!! This has been pointed out before, right after your post in fact, but you simply ignore it together with everything else that PROVES you're talking out of your ass and falling for snake oil salesmen like Pye



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Then point out how our evidence is wrong. So far you failed horribly every single time you tried...like when you made the ridiculous claim that there's no "target food" for humans
Well I think this evolution website does the best job in explaining it all.

www.talkorigins.org...




There you go...starting with the "target food" nonsense again even after having had that claim debunked over and over and over and over again
Just because no one was able to answer it, doesn't mean its debunked.




Bananas are perfect target food, so are potatoes, or meat, or rice, or ... the planet is FULL of target food for crying out loud!!
No you totally missed the definition, I can tell.




It doesn't matter if it's a coincidence or not given that neither Pye's claims nor the bible are objective evidence. If it sounds familiar, he probably did it so he can sell more books to gullible religious people.
Sorry but I don't believe in coincidences like that, I can understand why you might, as you believe in the frail theories that claim to support evolution. This is why I keep saying it reminds me of a Rube Goldenburg machine.




This repeating that blunder?

Look, I posted links highlighting over 400 cases in which the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, so saying it's accurate is a great demonstration of blind faith and ignorance.

You look silly too saying it's accurate after having seen those links listing hundreds of cases where the bible isn't accurate. All you accomplish is to show off your ignorance and blind faith
I think anyone can make claims of debunking which is obviously what is happening here. They still can't prove or disprove what has happened, that doesn't automatically make it false.




It's amazing to watch your completely ignore objective evidence
Just because you google something that comes up with the words debunked does not mean your correct.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Why are you linking the talkorigins website to prove your ridiculous "target food" argument??? The word doesn't even exist on that website!!! For crying out loud, go outside, walk up to an apple tree...then pick an apple and eat it. After that, come back and tell us "this apple isn't target food"


PLEASE start using some logic





Sorry but I don't believe in coincidences like that, I can understand why you might, as you believe in the frail theories that claim to support evolution. This is why I keep saying it reminds me of a Rube Goldenburg machine.


What coincidence? That both the bible and Pye made up stuff that's demonstrably wrong?





Just because you google something that comes up with the words debunked does not mean your correct.


If you make dumb claims like the "no target food" one, and others here post objective evidence and arguments that debunk your claim...well...then that means you are WRONG and they are RIGHT. You might not like it, but objective evidence trumps fairy tales...and you haven't provided any objective evidence. Even worse, once you are proven wrong, you simply continue to repost the same nonsense claims. Ignorance at its best...you might wanna reread this website's mantra



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Why are you linking the talkorigins website to prove your ridiculous "target food" argument??? The word doesn't even exist on that website!!! For crying out loud, go outside, walk up to an apple tree...then pick an apple and eat it. After that, come back and tell us "this apple isn't target food"

PLEASE start using some logic
I never claimed that site talked about target food, it talked about hypothesis. Your discomboobalated.




What coincidence? That both the bible and Pye made up stuff that's demonstrably wrong?
No that his findings can be found in the bible, but you probabaly missed that too.




If you make dumb claims like the "no target food" one, and others here post objective evidence and arguments that debunk your claim..
Cant be to dumb, no one is able to answer it.




well...then that means you are WRONG and they are RIGHT. You might not like it, but objective evidence trumps fairy tales...and you haven't provided any objective evidence. Even worse, once you are proven wrong, you simply continue to repost the same nonsense claims. Ignorance at its best...you might wanna reread this website's mantra
Which I'm agreeing with totally. Evolution has never been proven, it has never been identified in humans, and macro evolution has never been observed. Pyes findings are on the table for anyone to challenge. and the human genome is public information. So evolution is false and intervention isn't.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Sometimes.
If sometimes is an answer to you being a speed reader then you need to stop. Speed reading does not mean skip text and pick out words that suit your agenda


Of course I made it up, and it turns out to have some truth to it. I'm running 100% with every person I have asked face to face. Everyone is agreeing with me. I had to make up the idea of target food otherwise I knew it would be a bugger to try to explain but apparently with mrxyz I'm still having to explain it, its like over his head.
Well thanks for at least admitting 'target food ' is an invention by you. Now dont speed read this.

No one gives you the answer you ask for with regards to 'target food' because it is a nonsense invention that does not exist just like your version of 'natural and unnatural'. I know you use these nonsense terms to hide behind but all you do is make yourself the fool everyone has come to recognise.


No I disagree, I don't think he published his article to let people know he has a false claim on telepathy. And Your assuming it would work with animals. You like to assume a lot. Why don't you assume I'm correct on this one. (:
No he quite clearly said it 'COULD' be the brain being effected by the earths magnetic field and both humans and animals have brains.

You say he 'Published' his article. You do know, you being a science major that is not the same as publishing his findings to the scientific community dont you?




top topics



 
31
<< 332  333  334    336  337  338 >>

log in

join