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.
So supply them
Target food is not but the definitions that support it is.
You already changed your definition for target food so yours do. But you are so sure what they are then provide them. Should be a lot easier than avoiding doing so.
Worst case I might have omitted some definitions, but the definitions themselves are what they are and they don't change.
How many times do you need to be told. These terms are of your construction. They do not exist anywhere else. So you provide the definition.
I did, I gave you the wiki links and you rejected them.
Unnatural food, unnatural processes to name two
There are no made up terms only the term target food.
I never claimed that bread was not made by man. I told you that none of the processes in making a loaf of bread is done by unnatural means. ie we dont use magic
Well what do you expect colin, your a blundering idiot that believes that bread is not man made and an all natural food. I don't know what to tell you. Your head isn't on straight man.
Maybe it will but I asked for IN THE WILD. Please provide the definition
wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.
Maybe that one will help for wild.
Prove it
Well again colin this is because you believe that everything on this planet is natural, and your wrong. Hate to break it to you but this is why your having a problem with definitions, and its coming around full circle to you.
Here is your problem. redundant adaption is your construct. I have already shown you that words when combined change their meaning. Your term, you provide the definition of redundant adaption.
If you don't understand redundant adaptation, you will have to break it down into two parts and look it up that way.
You wrote it again You are serious arent you
They could be eating domesticated grass.
Told you many times it does not matter if you include domesticated animals or not. One of your statments is wrong. Which one is it?
If your not considering domesticated animals I would say the first one was a typo, Most things do have target food.
It clearly is not. So now again you lie. It is really pathetic. So the bible backing up your first post is wrong. The information in the bible is incorrect?
Then the first one is a typo.
This from a science major? Gathering and providing proof is 'tidius'. You mean to say all you need to make science work is to use common sense and guess work? You really are a fool.
Well if I'm a sapiensaphobe about this, then you must be new to whats going on. I didn't have to research the goof, I had never heard of anything that ants do that is unnatural. Now I understand that you guys might rely on the straight forward approach and find it pretty time consuming and tidius, but I on the other hand just realized some common sense facts. As a result a lot of unnecessary work was avoided.
Was you right or was you wrong. What are you saying now?
And was I wrong, NO, I was right, Ants aren't guilty of any unnatural activity.
Caught on ages ago. You are just a thick deluded fantacist. You fit the name Pinocchio perfectly.
Now I'm sure this approach might sound shocking to somone with your mentality, but over time you will catch on.
Ok...
So supply them
I doubt seriously if they changed.
You already changed your definition for target food so yours do. But you are so sure what they are then provide them. Should be a lot easier than avoiding doing so
I did, and as you can see, I did not make them up.
How many times do you need to be told. These terms are of your construction. They do not exist anywhere else. So you provide the definition.
Then stick your other foot in your mouth as I posted all of them.
Unnatural food, unnatural processes to name two
Things don't have to be magic to be unnatural, as was out argument about clothiing being magic.
I never claimed that bread was not made by man. I told you that none of the processes in making a loaf of bread is done by unnatural means. ie we dont use magic
Maybe it will but I asked for IN THE WILD. Please provide the definition
If everything on the planet were natural, we woudln't have the word unnatural.
Prove it
And I have already explained that an easier way for you to understand it is excessive adaptation.
Here is your problem. redundant adaption is your construct. I have already shown you that words when combined change their meaning. Your term, you provide the definition of redundant adaption.
HA HA, no cattle aren't domesticated if they are eating in the wild, plain and simple. Now they can live in the wild outside in the elements and we feed them, and that would make them domesticated.
They could be eating domesticated grass.
You wrote it again You are serious arent you
And I told you the typo was in the one that states that most animals don't have target food.
Told you many times it does not matter if you include domesticated animals or not. One of your statments is wrong. Which one is it?
Why would you say that?
It clearly is not. So now again you lie. It is really pathetic. So the bible backing up your first post is wrong. The information in the bible is incorrect?
I try not to bragg to much about it.
This from a science major? Gathering and providing proof is 'tidius'. You mean to say all you need to make science work is to use common sense and guess work? You really are a fool.
I was rigth.
Was you right or was you wrong. What are you saying now?
isn't it emberassing to be so incredulous still even though I have practically stumped you on every account?
Caught on ages ago. You are just a thick deluded fantacist. You fit the name Pinocchio perfectly.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
This is the type of mentality we have to deal with today. People that think there just couldn't possibly be any other life out there, people that think the earth is flat, or close to it. This self centered narcissisim is what keeps the whole idea of evolution alive, cause it sure in the hell aint science thats doing it. No matter how many times I read another evolution link, I keep coming up with negative numbers on the side of evolution.
I'll back this.
I've been reading whats going on here, and this "Tooth" guy is most likely mentally challenged.
He is the type that, well, leaped into the rabbit hole and asked Tweedledum to close the hole!
So since your so quick to judge me and make a claim that I'm retarded, what rock did you crawl out from under? And please bless me with your presence by forwarding some actuall proof that says evolution is real rather than your retarded. Thats old news buddy, sorry your only about the 4th person on there thats tried to profile me. At least my ears aint wet.
Really, I mean what is the use of quoting anymore of this rubbish. You do not show much genius or any knowledge as a science major.
Ok...
re·dun·dant/riˈdəndənt/Adjective: 1.No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2.(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.
Until you define them they do not even exist anywhere but in your head.
I doubt seriously if they changed.
You supplied the definitons to words not the terms you use. Redundant adaption, redundant processs, unnatural food, target food, in the wild. Try again
I did, and as you can see, I did not make them up.
Yes I put the list in a more readable format and pointed out the terms in it that need a definition
Then stick your other foot in your mouth as I posted all of them.
They do have to be outside nature though and nothing in making bread is outside of nature and no steps in making bread are redundant.
Things don't have to be magic to be unnatural, as was out argument about clothiing being magic.
Can anyone actually be this thick Wild and 'In the wild' are NOT the same. One defines a condition while the other describes a place. Define in the wild.
wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.
domesticated or cultivated.
Adverb: In an uncontrolled manner: "the bad guys shot wild".
Noun: A natural state or uncultivated or uninhabited region: "kiwis are virtually extinct in the wild".
Synonyms: adjective. savage - mad - feral
noun. wilderness - waste
There you go..
There's a bit of logic for you do you think that is proof your fantasy is reality?
If everything on the planet were natural, we woudln't have the word unnatural.
I will resist asking for a definition for excessive adaption until you start altering it to suit yourself.
And I have already explained that an easier way for you to understand it is excessive adaptation.
So this is why you need to define IN THE WILD.
HA HA, no cattle aren't domesticated if they are eating in the wild, plain and simple. Now they can live in the wild outside in the elements and we feed them, and that would make them domesticated.
And I told you that was not a typo. You meant what you wrote and it fits what you was trying to link to in the bible. Dont try that lie with me because I will not accept it
And I told you the typo was in the one that states that most animals don't have target food.
or
Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
Which one is correct
Aside from humans, most things here have target food.
see above.
Why would you say that?
Trouble is, even with this you destroy your agument. In fact you completely destroyed any of the ruses and scams you employ to poo poo the evidence given you
I try not to bragg to much about it.
In the above you state that the straight forward approach is time consuming and 'tidius'. That 'common sense facts' avoid a lot of unnecessasary work.
Well if I'm a sapiensaphobe about this, then you must be new to whats going on. I didn't have to research the goof, I had never heard of anything that ants do that is unnatural. Now I understand that you guys might rely on the straight forward approach and find it pretty time consuming and tidius, but I on the other hand just realized some common sense facts. As a result a lot of unnecessary work was avoided
Never expected you to admit you was wrong
I was rigth.
Only in your fantasy world Pinnochio
isn't it emberassing to be so incredulous still even though I have practically stumped you on every account?
HA HA, no cattle aren't domesticated if they are eating in the wild, plain and simple. Now they can live in the wild outside in the elements and we feed them, and that would make them domesticated.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
HA HA, no cattle aren't domesticated if they are eating in the wild, plain and simple. Now they can live in the wild outside in the elements and we feed them, and that would make them domesticated.
I am Swiss, and back home we have DOMESTICATED cows eat IN THE WILD every single summer, and only stored food in winter...
So according to your "logic" (overstatement of the year), those cows are domesticated 6 months of the year, and "wild" the other 6 months
THINK before you type!!
Originally posted by Connector
Originally posted by MrXYZ
HA HA, no cattle aren't domesticated if they are eating in the wild, plain and simple. Now they can live in the wild outside in the elements and we feed them, and that would make them domesticated.
I am Swiss, and back home we have DOMESTICATED cows eat IN THE WILD every single summer, and only stored food in winter...
So according to your "logic" (overstatement of the year), those cows are domesticated 6 months of the year, and "wild" the other 6 months
THINK before you type!!
This "toothism" of domesticated cows eating domesticated grass, is in my top 3 of crazy tooth assertions. Simply clueless.....edit on 6-4-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by andersensrm
I'm throwing the purported "blue laminate" of DNA in as my favorite he-who-shall-not-be-named-ism of all time.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
That is because evolution is a bunch of theory's put together. Just like its described in the first sentance...
in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by itsthetooth
Exactly and theories mixed with hypotheses are NOT fact.
That is because evolution is a bunch of theory's put together. Just like its described in the first sentance...
in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.
A theory is also not a fact.edit on 23-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger,[1] but usually excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors.
Well I think you summed it up yourself genus when you wrote, part of. Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't part of mean not whole?
I have no idea what your talking about, and if we are from here, how is it that we are destroying the planet genus?
Actually I was listed with a borderline genus IQ.
I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural,
Originally posted by flyingfish
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by andersensrm
I'm throwing the purported "blue laminate" of DNA in as my favorite he-who-shall-not-be-named-ism of all time.
Good one! Lets not forget some of the many made up terms like REDUNDANT adaptation, "If we had evolved, we would not have have to adapt".
Then he goes on with contradictions like "I think it is possible we evolved on another planet, but we seem to be lacking the oodles of proof that should be present here on earth".