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: 339
31
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 
Sorry mate but these videos are like braindeath. From the comedy voiced presenter that spouts utter ignorance that at first makes you laugh until you realise this is being peddled as the truth to those to lazy to find out the facts for themselves.

Bones from stones indeed. Please dont tell me you fell for this hogwash




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





This means the leaf cutter ant has no target food. It cuts leaves, they cannot digest cellulose. Transports them back to the nest. The ant then plants, tends and grows a fungus on the leaf cuttings. Using antibiotics to control a pest that attacks its crop. The fungus is the ants source of food.
back in the definition you need to add a number four, which would be the food needs to be natural. Meaning no un natural processes.


The only problem with missidentifying the ants process, is that it is still natural, so its accepted. The antibiotics are not made by the ant to use. Not being able to digest cellulose simply means its not his food.




The fungus has to be grown as it is not abundant everywhere. The processes involved in growing the fungus from cutting and tansporting the leaves onwards is processing the food.
And I'm sure the ant does all this without even thinking. After all how much thought process can one ant be responsible for to begin with?




The diet of leaf-cutter ants can sometimes include seeds, fruit and cereals so making the fugus the staple diet but not the 'target food'
Only if its a main staple and he relys on it..





The leaf cutter ant therefore fails your target food test and so must not be from here. If the leaf cutter ant is not from here neither are all the other types of ant. Which means the anteater is not from here or of course it could mean your target food being proof of native to earth is as stupid as it sounds.
Which is possible that they were borth brought here, just harder to believe. Ants do share a lot of things with nature so it does make it harder to believe.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Clearly, ants aren't "natural" on earth, just like humans aren't. So now we have ants and humans...I wonder how many other species are "not from earth"
What a coincidence, the bible indicates that a lot of things were brought to earth
.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Shall we go with the honey bee.

It eats pollen but also uses pollen to produce honey that it uses as an all year round food source. It processes its food and produces honey and bees wax. that it makes honey containers with the wax we call honey combs. Not forgetting it has gathered and transported the pollen. It gathers pollen from many/any flowering plant.

Bee's also genetically manipulate their population using royal jelly as the agent.

Bees also clearly fail the target food test
I wasn't aware they had any problems finding food.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





That's complete nonsense. You have everything on earth to eat healthy. I eat healthy and have no issues whatsoever.
With unlimited resources, unlimited money, and unlimited transport, and unlimited processing you are correct to a degree.

Over all your wrong. Again did you miss all the links I posted about all the various general eating problems, and dietary issues?

What your saying in essence is that eating healthy is not natural and doesn't have to be. I totally disagree once again proving our food isn't here.




The most evident proof for your argument being hogwash is that homo sapiens (and its ancestors) survived on food provided by earth just fine for 200,000 years
Oh I totally agree, but your once again missing the point. How much additional trouble did they have to go through to feed themselves, and how much was there health compramised as a result of not having the correct food. Your totally missing the point. Again we can eat toothpaste and toilet paper but that doesn't mean it was meant for us.




You're essentially stating "we have survived 200,000 years as a species...but the food we eat isn't good for us". That's comical and crazy!!!
Well that could be a stretch but still in the correct direction. I would say the food was not up to par for sure.

Did you miss all the links of food and health related issues. Did you miss how over 60% if all americans will die from diet related heart failure? I guess that just doesn't sink in. Well it will when you get older, because its just a matter of time until you too become a food statistic.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



back in the definition you need to add a number four, which would be the food needs to be natural. Meaning no un natural processes.
You had your chance to make sure your definition was correct. That you now add another clause is not a surprise but shows your dishonesty. Anyhow adding more makes little difference it fails on the original definition even if you now define what natural and unnatural food is.


The only problem with missidentifying the ants process, is that it is still natural, so its accepted. The antibiotics are not made by the ant to use. Not being able to digest cellulose simply means its not his food.
Exactly right. Not being able to digest cellulose and having to process the leaves to grow fungus means it fails your requirements automatically on two counts. It also eats other foods so it fails on ALL three counts.

Your only hope now is to define unnatural food or of course you can run from the truth as usual.

Of course the ant produces the antibiotic and uses it to kill infections of its crop. Your answer is senseless drivel


And I'm sure the ant does all this without even thinking. After all how much thought process can one ant be responsible for to begin with?
See your definition. Whether the ant thinks or not has nothing to do with your requirements.


Only if its a main staple and he relys on it..
You fail again. If the ants crops fail it lives on pretty well eating other foods as listed. It may not live in such great numbers but then neither would humans if our crops failed.


Which is possible that they were borth brought here, just harder to believe. Ants do share a lot of things with nature so it does make it harder to believe.
If ants were brought here so was the anteater. You see its not about belief in the end, its about proof, evidence. You have none.

edit on 31-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I wasn't aware they had any problems finding food.
Wasnt you? Oh well another thing the rest of the world knows that you dont. Back to the point. What do you think the Bee's target food is then?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You had your chance to make sure your definition was correct. That you now add another clause is not a surprise but shows your dishonesty. Anyhow adding more makes little difference it fails on the original definition even if you now define what natural and unnatural food is.
It was allready a definition point that was brought up before so its not like I'm just pulling it out.




Exactly right. Not being able to digest cellulose and having to process the leaves to grow fungus means it fails your requirements automatically on two counts. It also eats other foods so it fails on ALL three counts.
Well then its probably not a target food. And just because a species eats some off things doesn't mean I was implying they would only ever eat a target food. Your obviously missing the definition again.




Your only hope now is to define unnatural food or of course you can run from the truth as usual.

Of course the ant produces the antibiotic and uses it to kill infections of its crop. Your answer is senseless drivel
And its all done through natural process. Your trying to compare this with say our process of chemicals and pasturizing and fortifying of milk. I'm sorry but there is no comparison.




See your definition. Whether the ant thinks or not has nothing to do with your requirements.
Which is obviously why your failing at understanding the definition. Redundant adaptation is not natural.




You fail again. If the ants crops fail it lives on pretty well eating other foods as listed. It may not live in such great numbers but then neither would humans if our crops failed.
So then your example was simply not a target food.




If ants were brought here so was the anteater. You see its not about belief in the end, its about proof, evidence. You have none.
I can't think of a single reason to believe that.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Wasnt you? Oh well another thing the rest of the world knows that you dont. Back to the point. What do you think the Bee's target food is then?
I haven't studied them in depth enough to make any claims but will say that I haven't heard of them having any food problems.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Clearly, ants aren't "natural" on earth, just like humans aren't. So now we have ants and humans...I wonder how many other species are "not from earth"
What a coincidence, the bible indicates that a lot of things were brought to earth
.


Clearly that's proof the bible is 100% true (even though it really isn't) and snakes can really talk. Quick, call "Science" and tell them you have an article for them


Of all my years on ATS, the "target food" argument has to be the dumbest and most ridiculous argument I ever heard. It's so easy to disprove, it's not even a real argument. The only reason you continue to believe in that nonsense is that in your mind it fits your belief...a belief not based on any logic and rationality, just like every other religion.




Again we can eat toothpaste and toilet paper but that doesn't mean it was meant for us.


And again you bring up that silly argument. Only a moron would eat toothpaste and toilet paper (or a psychologically impaired person of course). Why? Because it doesn't contain any nutrients and isn't natural food. It's not made from anything we can use as food...compared to bananas, which are prefect natural food. Some people having allergies isn't evidence that overall food on earth isn't meant for us


Look, I really don't know what to say. A child would understand that your argument is laughably flawed. Your own ignorance overrides your bain and disables your ability to think rationally and logically. It's like talking to a religious fundamentalist...no amount of logic convinces those people, they are shining beacons of ignorance.
edit on 31-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It was allready a definition point that was brought up before so its not like I'm just pulling it out.
'Target food' is your invention. Are you telling me you did not know enough about it when I listed the points and asked if this is the correct definition that you forgot 'unnatural food' another invented term by you?

Does not matter anyhow as I have said because if 'target food' needs to be all of the requirements or just one most life on this planet would have no target food.


Well then its probably not a target food. And just because a species eats some off things doesn't mean I was implying they would only ever eat a target food. Your obviously missing the definition again.
If an animal did not eat its target food and ate other food then surely this is unnatural food which means they are not from here.


And its all done through natural process. Your trying to compare this with say our process of chemicals and pasturizing and fortifying of milk. I'm sorry but there is no comparison.
I am not surprised you cannot define unnatural food because it does not exist. The above you gave is not a description. If I cook an apple pie it is done through natural processes. i.e. I do not make it by magic. I mix ingredients, add heat and I get an apple pie. All natural processes.


Which is obviously why your failing at understanding the definition. Redundant adaptation is not natural.
Not included in your definition or your revised definition. Stay focused as you are loosing badly.


So then your example was simply not a target food.
So the leaf cutter ant has no target food. By your own requirements it is not from here. So neither are any ants which by default means the anteater is not from here.


I can't think of a single reason to believe that.
Again it is not about belief it is about proof. I have shown you again that the ant fails to pass your test to be considered of this planet. I see little way other than a blatent lie that you can deny this and hold your fantasy to be true.


edit on 31-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Wasnt you? Oh well another thing the rest of the world knows that you dont. Back to the point. What do you think the Bee's target food is then?
I haven't studied them in depth enough to make any claims but will say that I haven't heard of them having any food problems.
Still should not prevent you from identifying their target food as you have stated many times. Animals with target food know what it is because it is obvious.

What is the honey bee's target food?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


You do not want to believe in a God because then you might have to change your lifestyle and

Really? My lack of belief in god(s) has nothing to do with what I want. Trust me, my life would be much more convenient if I weren't part of a minority that's less trusted by the rest of the society I live in than terrorists and rapists. My lack of belief is simply a fact.


follow the Creator's rules and most don't accept that at their own peril IMO.

Which creator? Which rules? Yours? Why is your baseless creation myth any more valid than anyone else's?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Still should not prevent you from identifying their target food as you have stated many times. Animals with target food know what it is because it is obvious.

What is the honey bee's target food?
I honestly don't know enough about them.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Still should not prevent you from identifying their target food as you have stated many times. Animals with target food know what it is because it is obvious.

What is the honey bee's target food?
I honestly don't know enough about them.
Really? the hint is in the name? It is also a well covered topic with many articles and information with a simple google search.

But hey just answer the post you by-passed. Concerning ants and their target food.
edit on 31-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Clearly that's proof the bible is 100% true (even though it really isn't) and snakes can really talk. Quick, call "Science" and tell them you have an article for them

Of all my years on ATS, the "target food" argument has to be the dumbest and most ridiculous argument I ever heard. It's so easy to disprove, it's not even a real argument. The only reason you continue to believe in that nonsense is that in your mind it fits your belief...a belief not based on any logic and rationality, just like every other religion
And still after all your yapping you still can't produce one target food for humans.




And again you bring up that silly argument. Only a moron would eat toothpaste and toilet paper (or a psychologically impaired person of course). Why? Because it doesn't contain any nutrients and isn't natural food. It's not made from anything we can use as food...compared to bananas, which are prefect natural food. Some people having allergies isn't evidence that overall food on earth isn't meant for us
So then what your saying by your own admission is you rely on mans ingredients lable, rather than some natural food that we should have plenty of.




Look, I really don't know what to say. A child would understand that your argument is laughably flawed. Your own ignorance overrides your bain and disables your ability to think rationally and logically. It's like talking to a religious fundamentalist...no amount of logic convinces those people, they are shining beacons of ignorance
And still with all the ignorance, you can't produce a single target food for humans.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Sorry, no excuses for ignorant megalomania.

The best samples we have are from the moon the LCROSS lunar impact mission conferms a billion gallons of water ice in the floor of a crater near the moon's south pole.
Opportunity landed in Eagle Crater on Mars on Jan. 25, 2004, three weeks after its rover twin, Spirit, landed halfway around the planet. Opportunity found evidence of an ancient wet environment.
Curiosity, is slated to land on Mars on Aug. 6, 2012. Unlike earlier rovers, Curiosity carries equipment to gather samples of rocks and soil to process them.
Personally, I want to go back to Titan and Dione. Cassini detected oxygen ions in Dione's atmosphere, it begs the question, whats under that layer of water ice.
WTF does any of this have to do with us living on another planet, or learning about such an idea?


Did you seriously write this profoundly ignorant response


Does any one else here find this response one of tooth's top ten ignorant post's?

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining anything about learning to imbeciles.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And still after all your yapping you still can't produce one target food for humans.
Strangely neither can you for ants. I wonder why that is?


And still with all the ignorance, you can't produce a single target food for humans.
Again neither can you provide one for ants or honey bee's and I note you have by-passed my post concerning ants and target food. Are you running again?


edit on 31-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





'Target food' is your invention. Are you telling me you did not know enough about it when I listed the points and asked if this is the correct definition that you forgot 'unnatural food' another invented term by you?

Does not matter anyhow as I have said because if 'target food' needs to be all of the requirements or just one most life on this planet would have no target food.
It slipped my mind, what can I say I'm not perfect. However you know I'm not making it up as I had already mentioned it.




If an animal did not eat its target food and ate other food then surely this is unnatural food which means they are not from here.
Wrong, you pulled that out of your ass and it has nothing to do with unnatural food.




I am not surprised you cannot define unnatural food because it does not exist. The above you gave is not a description. If I cook an apple pie it is done through natural processes. i.e. I do not make it by magic. I mix ingredients, add heat and I get an apple pie. All natural processes
Foods that are redundantly processed are not natural. If an ant for example does use chemicals, he is still doing it with a natural process, we are not.




Not included in your definition or your revised definition. Stay focused as you are loosing badly.
It's assumed and I though you understood whats going on here.




So the leaf cutter ant has no target food. By your own requirements it is not from here. So neither are any ants which by default means the anteater is not from here.
I don't know enough about the ant to make that assesment.




Again it is not about belief it is about proof. I have shown you again that the ant fails to pass your test to be considered of this planet. I see little way other than a blatent lie that you can deny this and hold your fantasy to be true.
Ok I can't think of a single thing that proves that.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Tooth, you're getting really silly now





And still after all your yapping you still can't produce one target food for humans.


I have listed half a dozen already, but here you go: bananas, potatoes, meat, fish, eggs, carrots, apples, pears, rice, do I need to go on or are you simply going to ignore all those examples.

FACT is, all of those things are perfectly fine for us, we can digest them and they provide us with all the nutrients we need. Some people are allergic against some items, but the large majority isn't. Many problems stem from people eating the wrong food, or wrong combination of food. But our planet has the perfect food for us because that's how we survived for 200,000 years.

A child would understand all that, and it baffles me that your belief is making you so ignorant, you can't even see reality anymore





So then what your saying by your own admission is you rely on mans ingredients lable, rather than some natural food that we should have plenty of.


What are you talking about?? We have plenty of food...and how on earth is us not eating toothpaste proof of anything. Like I said, toothpaste isn't a natural food. Are you saying in a perfect world we should be able to eat everything?





And still with all the ignorance, you can't produce a single target food for humans.


Except for the dozens I listed...the ones you keep ignoring



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join