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: 352
31
<< 349  350  351    353  354  355 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Target food is not but the definitions that support it is.
So supply them


Worst case I might have omitted some definitions, but the definitions themselves are what they are and they don't change.
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, I gave you the wiki links and you rejected them.
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.


There are no made up terms only the term target food.
Unnatural food, unnatural processes to name two


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.
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


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.
Maybe it will but I asked for IN THE WILD. Please provide the definition


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.
Prove it


If you don't understand redundant adaptation, you will have to break it down into two parts and look it up that way.
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.


They could be eating domesticated grass.
You wrote it again
You are serious arent you



If your not considering domesticated animals I would say the first one was a typo, Most things do 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?


Then the first one is a typo.
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?




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Domesticated grass? LMAO!!!!!!!
What is this domesticated grass, a golf course?
I have never seen cows grazing a golf course



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
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.


And was I wrong, NO, I was right, Ants aren't guilty of any unnatural activity.
Was you right or was you wrong. What are you saying now?


Now I'm sure this approach might sound shocking to somone with your mentality, but over time you will catch on.
Caught on ages ago. You are just a thick deluded fantacist. You fit the name Pinocchio perfectly.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So supply them
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.

ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.

wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not 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

un·nat·u·ral/ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: 1.Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial.
Synonyms: abnormal - artificial - factitious - affected

food/fo͞od/Noun: Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
Synonyms: nourishment - fare - nutriment - aliment - pabulum

tar·get/ˈtärgit/Noun: A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Verb: Select as an object of attention or attack.
Synonyms: aim - mark - goal - objective - object - purpose

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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 doubt seriously if they changed.




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, and as you can see, I did not make them up.




Unnatural food, unnatural processes to name two
Then stick your other foot in your mouth as I posted all of them.




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
Things don't have to be magic to be unnatural, as was out argument about clothiing being magic.




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.
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.




Prove it
If everything on the planet were natural, we woudln't have the word unnatural.




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.
And I have already explained that an easier way for you to understand it is excessive adaptation.




They could be eating domesticated grass.

You wrote it again You are serious arent you
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.

wiki.answers.com...




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?
And I told you the typo was in the one that states that most animals don't 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?
Why would you say that?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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 try not to bragg to much about it.




Was you right or was you wrong. What are you saying now?
I was rigth.




Caught on ages ago. You are just a thick deluded fantacist. You fit the name Pinocchio perfectly.
isn't it emberassing to be so incredulous still even though I have practically stumped you on every account?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





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!
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.

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.


My judgement of you has really NOTHING to do with your positions on evolution.

No, you see. It comes from the way your arguing / debating.

*Metaphor.... If your going to argue 1 + 1 = 3 you better have proof, otherwise don't expect us to fall down the rabbit hole with you.

My relationship with God does not in any way depend on evolution being correct or in-correct

My 'idea' of God includes the notion that God would prefer to have Good people (people that don't cause overs harm, and also helps), smart people, people that ask questions and use technology to find answers for the benefit of humanity. My 'idea' of God includes the notion that belief or not belief in any book (any), does not matter , only the actions matter.


Your idea of God includes the notion that a man who preaches God's word as a career, and f**ks little children he meets as a result, are who God prefers.

Your idea of God includes the notion that God perfers mass murderers who are christians, as opposed to normal people who are non-christians.

edit on 5-4-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Maybe you just have an agenda.

Or your crazy.

This whole thread, is basically you arguing against various people and it's all the same thing.
Every person here thinks your crazy!


But hey, the show must go on, right?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
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.

You gave me definitions for SINGLE WORDS. I asked for the definitions of the TERMS you made up. I explained how words take on new meaning when you combine them with others. Here it is again

Here is an example of how words change when combined.

1. Swimming: The action of moving through water.
2. Costumes: A set of clothing or single garment that makes up an outfit.
3. Swimming costume. Clothes that you swim in so you dont get arrested for skinny dipping.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition.

Your made up terms do not exist anywhere than in your head and they like your stories change constantly. Provide the definitions for the TERMS YOU USE. Not the words that you mixed together.


edit on 6-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I doubt seriously if they changed.
Until you define them they do not even exist anywhere but in your head.


I did, and as you can see, I did not make them up.
You supplied the definitons to words not the terms you use. Redundant adaption, redundant processs, unnatural food, target food, in the wild. Try again


Then stick your other foot in your mouth as I posted all of them.
Yes I put the list in a more readable format and pointed out the terms in it that need a definition


Things don't have to be magic to be unnatural, as was out argument about clothiing being magic.
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.


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..
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.


If everything on the planet were natural, we woudln't have the word unnatural.
There's a bit of logic for you
do you think that is proof your fantasy is reality?


And I have already explained that an easier way for you to understand it is excessive adaptation.
I will resist asking for a definition for excessive adaption until you start altering it to suit yourself.

So any fish, flower, fowl that has excessive seeds, eggs when breeding are not from here? Pretty much no insects either. You never have to do more than scratch the surface of your silly fantasy for it to fall apart.


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.
So this is why you need to define IN THE WILD.

Why the link to domesticated? I know what that is but have no idea what domesticated grass is.
Sorry just tickled me again. Your defending it
your serious



And I told you the typo was in the one that states that most animals don't have target food.
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


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.
or


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.
Which one is correct


Why would you say that?
see above.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I try not to bragg to much about it.
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


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
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.

You matey can no longer claim to only accept facts or hard evidence as in seeing a human evolve. Common sense of others says evolution is true, So it must be. Who needs all that hard work gathering evidence.


I was rigth.
Never expected you to admit you was wrong


isn't it emberassing to be so incredulous still even though I have practically stumped you on every account?
Only in your fantasy world Pinnochio


edit on 6-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   


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!!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

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)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

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)

I would agree, one of us should come up with a top ten list of "toothisms" this way we can better serve the community with truth about these new fallacies.
Come to think about it we may need to come up with a top 20!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


The 20 toothisms of evolution. Sounds like it would be pretty interesting. Can't wait to see it.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

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".



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 

WHERE ARE ALL THE BONES?!?!?!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
OK....aside from the above mentioned "domesticated cow + grass", here are a few of my favs



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
 





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.
Exactly and theories mixed with hypotheses are NOT fact.

A theory is also not a fact.
edit on 23-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


......very odd, tooth replying to himself like replying to a different poster and doesn't even realize. Makes me suspect multiple users on the same account or a lack of focus and/or meds (to use a tooth insult tool).....

Also, his "genus typo". Seems pretty strange making the same typo, three times in separate posts. One would think a borderline genius, proud enough to mention it, would know how to spell it correctly lol. That's no typo.....

wiki...typo def...tooth's fav source


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.


And of course let's not forget this gem:



I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural,


Keep piling on guys
.........let's build that list

edit on 6-4-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

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".


Dude, I can't freaking stop laughing after reading this post .




top topics



 
31
<< 349  350  351    353  354  355 >>

log in

join