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: 373
31
<< 370  371  372    374  375  376 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You made a BIG mistake here.
Nope no mistake here, I'm the one using the word in the correct meaning and you are NOT.

Speaking of trolling, its apparent that thats all you have been doing in the last two hundred pages. What exactly is your goal?




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Speaking of trolling Colin you never did answer why it took you 54 pages to eventually contest the understanding of the term Target food.

So whats the problem?



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Dont you get it. You have been found out. Your finished. I cannot debate with someone with your level of dishonesty. Here is why



If its artificial, than its not natural. Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term. An example, Ben and Jerrys ice cream was just busted a few years ago because they were indicating on there lables that they are using all natural ingredients. Only problem was that one of the ingredients was corn sryup. Now you and I both know that corn sryup is made from natural ingredients but the fact of the matter is that corn sryup as a sweetner is not naturally achieved on its own in the wild. It has to be greatly processed. So they were busted and had to remove the phrase all natural.
You made a BIG mistake here.

Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term.



So you show here you have understood the importance of giving the correct use of and the clarity of meaning all along but you have acted as if you could not understand.

YOU ARE A FAKE. YOU ARE A TROLL



Hung by you own words. You have shown above that you, far from not being able to understand what I and others have been asking over many pages you knew only to well. You needed to pretend to maintain the tools of your deception and dishonesty. Shameful.

BTW it is spelt Whimsical


edit on 29-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Dont you get it. You have been found out. Your finished. I cannot debate with someone with your level of dishonesty. Here is why
No I'm sorry I'm not visualizing your delusion. If your claiming to have found me out, I found you out a long time ago.
edit on 29-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Dont you get it. You have been found out. Your finished. I cannot debate with someone with your level of dishonesty. Here is why
No I'm sorry I'm not visualizing your delusion. If your claiming to have found me out, I found you out a long time ago.
edit on 29-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
Go ahead and try to lie your way out of this one.

Explain how you suddenly now know what you have pretended not to know over these many pages. Explain how you acted like you did not understand what you were being asked to define yet above shows you knew full well. You just dishonestly avoided giving them.

Your finished mate. You have been exposed as a dishonest troll. You have nothing left to hide behind, not even your nonsense made up terms. Nowhere for you to run this time.
edit on 29-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   


reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Dont you get it. You have been found out. Your finished. I cannot debate with someone with your level of dishonesty. Here is why
No I'm sorry I'm not visualizing your delusion. If your claiming to have found me out, I found you out a long time ago.
edit on 29-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Allow me.

Many times you have been asked to provide meanings for the terms you use in the context you use them. Each request has either been ignored or answered in a manner that fails to satisfy the request for defining the complete term in context.

As I previously pointed out, it would appear that failiure to define those terms allows for a "get out" clause whereby a succesful argument against your term leads to an alteration in what you will and will not allow that term to include.

As you have already supplied an example, lets stick with "natural" as used against Ben and Jerry.

In this example it would appear that the FDA only allow the term natural to be used if no artificialy synhesised ingredients are used. But it also would appear that processing of food allows it to keep its "natural" tag. The corn Syrup may fail the "natural" test by FDA standards, but the pasturised main ingredient of the ice cream obviously does pass the "natural" test.

And this is why you lose!

Using Ben and Jerrys as an example. you have shown you understand why clearly defined definitions are important. (personaly, I would have corn syrup as processed rather than artificial but...hey ho, I'm not defining on behalf of the FDA)

It is also clear that you do not accept the FDA definition of what is natural when it comes to food. (pasturization)

Now many examples have been given showing humans across the planet surviving on pure natural and unprocessed foods which you dismiss. And you dismiss them because man planted the seed, or man cleared an area of forest in order to provide space for them to grow, or man harvested them. The list goes on...

If we stick with the dictionary definition of natural (yes you have copied the text and presented it in this thread), or the FDA definition of natural, we can have a debate. Everyone knows the rules and everyone is using the same definition. But this is not the case, even though you provided links to FDA sites and constantly throw up wiki definition of single words contained within your terms, it is clear that your definition of your term does not match those in the dictionary, if they did you lose on definition at every turn.

But that does not have to be the end of it.

We accept that these are your terms, we accept that they do not match the "official" definitions, and so, in order to debate this properly, we have been requesting for you to clearly define the terms you use.

If you believe that posting the dictionary definition to "natural" defines the terms you used in the context you used it, then I say pasturised milk is unarguably natural and sits absolutley within the definition you supplied.

Up untill you posted the B&J link, I think some people were being very generous by offering you the benefit of doubt, possibly believing that your sub-standard education was limiting your understanding of what was being requested.

You have shown with that one link that you know exactly what is being asked, and why it has to be complied with to allow for honest debate.

Because you understand this, your failiure to comply with the requests, your attempts to side shift away from defining your terms, your insistance that definitions have already been provided all point to your involvement in this thread being superfluous. (this is probably a better word that redundant in the way in which you use it)

I see now why you are such a big fan of Pye.

Pye-
Make a claim, dont allow anyone access to the methods used, insist claim is truth

Tooth-
Make a statement, do not give clear definition of terms used, insist statement is truth.

I'm a generous fellow though so lets try one last time. three choices as I see it:

1. Define your term "natural food" (we'll start with this as you have already shown that you are aware of what is being requested, we can thrash out the definitions of your other terms once we have this on sorted)
2. Accept already defined words and fda description of natural as it pertains to food. (you will have to accept that food is natural even if processed)
3. Drop the subject, drop the thread, go and troll somewhere else.

PREDICTION - non of the above will be complied with as accepting any choice means epic loss for tooth
edit on 30-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Thanks ID. Your post describes the position nicely and your prediction will more than likely be proven true.

In a forum like this you HAVE to approach it in an honest way. We have to trust that what is written are the true views of the poster for it to have any meaning at all.

That has not happened for many pages now and with tooths mistake of showing he was aware of what I was asking for and knew the reaons why I was asking for those definitions he has put in doubt every post he has ever made. This is why I say he has lost big time. It has little to do with the topic, which he also avoided it is to do with his credibility.

I started this thread to get an insight on other views and from posters that did so in an honest way. I gave them and their views full respect. Something I lost with tooth long ago but I am forgiving too so I will go along with your offer to him as well.

I dont expect him to change his belief. I DO expect however to see an understanding of evolution. That is not the same as acceptance that it is true. Above all, an honest approach.

************************************************************

Anyhow. Saw a topic on this Chicken gives birth to live young

Now there are many reasons why this could happen. The poor chicken was torn apart by the birth I expect by the egg shell but. Reptiles do not have the same shell and if this was a gentic trait rather than a disease then it could illustrate how live birth evolved as a trait.

I was under the impression that eggs 'breath' so I do find it hard to believe this is true. If it is then there could well be a connection although with modern birds I dont see it as being anymore than a one off.


edit on 30-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Go ahead and try to lie your way out of this one.

Explain how you suddenly now know what you have pretended not to know over these many pages. Explain how you acted like you did not understand what you were being asked to define yet above shows you knew full well. You just dishonestly avoided giving them.

Your finished mate. You have been exposed as a dishonest troll. You have nothing left to hide behind, not even your nonsense made up terms. Nowhere for you to run this time
I have no idea what your talking about.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Many times you have been asked to provide meanings for the terms you use in the context you use them. Each request has either been ignored or answered in a manner that fails to satisfy the request for defining the complete term in context.
Oh they have been answered perfectly well, its just Colins attempt to try to find reason to throw them out otherwise he is now stuck.




As I previously pointed out, it would appear that failiure to define those terms allows for a "get out" clause whereby a succesful argument against your term leads to an alteration in what you will and will not allow that term to include.
But if I'm providing definitions, which I have multiple times, then there is no changing them.




As you have already supplied an example, lets stick with "natural" as used against Ben and Jerry.

In this example it would appear that the FDA only allow the term natural to be used if no artificialy synhesised ingredients are used. But it also would appear that processing of food allows it to keep its "natural" tag. The corn Syrup may fail the "natural" test by FDA standards, but the pasturised main ingredient of the ice cream obviously does pass the "natural" test.
A very keen observation that I had obviously missed and not realized.

Here is where the problem is, they state that its all natural ingredients. They are only making a claim that the ingredients are all natural and don't say anything about the processes being all natural.. So I'm sorry your mistaken.

Processes and ingredients are two different things.




Using Ben and Jerrys as an example. you have shown you understand why clearly defined definitions are important. (personaly, I would have corn syrup as processed rather than artificial but...hey ho, I'm not defining on behalf of the FDA)

It is also clear that you do not accept the FDA definition of what is natural when it comes to food. (pasturization)
Well its a valid question, does processing make a natural food no longer natural? I think it can depend on if it alters the food or not. In the case of milk its only removing the toxins which werent a natural benefit to begin with so no.




Now many examples have been given showing humans across the planet surviving on pure natural and unprocessed foods which you dismiss. And you dismiss them because man planted the seed, or man cleared an area of forest in order to provide space for them to grow, or man harvested them. The list goes on...
And I never ignored that, and its clear that you are missing the point. My point was that its much harder to hit our nutrition goals without processed food, and there is more work involved to harvest that food than what was probably suppose to be on our original planet. In short we probably don't live as long from not hitting those goals. So you can see it affects us in a multiutide of different ways, your just not seeing it.




If we stick with the dictionary definition of natural (yes you have copied the text and presented it in this thread), or the FDA definition of natural, we can have a debate. Everyone knows the rules and everyone is using the same definition. But this is not the case, even though you provided links to FDA sites and constantly throw up wiki definition of single words contained within your terms, it is clear that your definition of your term does not match those in the dictionary, if they did you lose on definition at every turn.
Thats not true at all, Ben and Jerrys claims to have all natural ingredients, and they say nothing about the processes.




Make a claim, dont allow anyone access to the methods used, insist claim is truth
And thats not the case at all. Pye's work is verifiable with anyone as the human genome is public information. This means anyone including YOU can access it. I still see no one contesting his findings so it again tells me that your wrong.




1. Define your term "natural food" (we'll start with this as you have already shown that you are aware of what is being requested, we can thrash out the definitions of your other terms once we have this on sorted)
Well everyone knows what natural food is. Probably the only thing that I can add to the understanding is that is specifically applys to food only in this definition.







2. Accept already defined words and fda description of natural as it pertains to food. (you will have to accept that food is natural even if processed)
I think my definitions fit with the existing ones anyhow and have been confused at why there has been so much confusion over them.




3. Drop the subject, drop the thread, go and troll somewhere else.
Maybe Colin was just doing a bad example



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
example of explaining what it was he was looking for. I was trying to be sincere and answer all questions but maybe he just wasn't asking in the right way. There does seem to be a language barrier. He types with an accent and some of what he says makes no sense. It's obvious hes not in the States. He doesn't use proper puncuation, at times hes downright rude, and demands answers to things he isn't asking for in a clear way.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





en.wikipedia.org...
Probably explains the whole idea of natural food the best. The thing you have to keep in mind about Ben and Jerry claiming all natural ingredients is if they are using organic milk, then that could be why, regardless of processes.

You will notice that the phrase natural food has little effect in the USA according to wiki, dont confuse this with the term all natural ingredients.
edit on 30-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
As you predicted. He thinks he will carry on in the same old way. Bets are off. You cannot hold an honest debate with him. He does not understand the meaning.

He will not understand this definition either HONEST or this one DEBATE

Honest debate = honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair while engaging in a discussion that is done through logical consistency, factual accuracy.

He also does not understand his time is up. He has lost what little credibility he had and shown himself only willing to act in a dishonest fashion.

Reading one of his replies to me he now claims to not understand me again and is back to playing dumb.

This says he knows only too well:


Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term.







edit on 30-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


What do you mean me not understanding. Your the one claiming to not accept or understand my definitions then turn around and claim I never gave them. It's obviously a cheap trick.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I can't believe the two of you making false claims of my poor education.

Im not the one asking for the definition of words like...
Most / redundant / natural / target / food / in the wild /.

But I'm the weak minded one, ya right.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Adaptation is just one part of EVOLUTION. There is also Genetic Mutation brought about by enviromental conditions as well as Survival of the Fittest.

A perfect example of these three parts of Evolution is the color of a Persons Skin due to where a group of people have lived over a long period of time. Since the cradle of Man was in Africa...where equitorial sunlight is very high and powerful in UV Radiation....people were all originally Black skinned in color with broad noses and large nostrils to be able to breath large amounts of thin air which by higher temperature has less volume of Oxygen even though the percentage of Oxygen is the same. This is similar to what SCUBA divers experience...I am one...in reverse as at 99 ft underwater...the ratio of Nitrogen to Oxygen is approx...80% Nitrogen to 20% Oxygen...yet every 33 ft down you have to add one additional atmosphere of presure thus one ATM. at sea level plus one more ATM. every 33ft down so at 99ft down you are breathing 4 ATM's of Air thus each breath is still 80% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen but at 4 ATM. you are breathing 4 times as much Nitrogen per breath you take...thus if you come up too quick...it bubbles in your blood and Nitrogen creates the BENDS!

On Land a ancient Humanoid would be breathing Hot Air thus thin air and this helped develop a broad nse and Nostrils like you see in African People. As you go further North further away from the direct equitorial Radiation...a persons skin pigments do not get bombarded with as much UV Radiation thus over time...White People...People in between these two areas are more Brown or Yellowed skined. This is EVOLUTION at work.
Split Infinity


I get what you are saying now and that makes sense. The little adaptations as time progresses eventually lead into the bigger picture of evolution, because at some point way down the road, what was isn't what will be.

Correct?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


I can't believe the two of you making false claims of my poor education.

Im not the one asking for the definition of words like...
Most / redundant / natural / target / food / in the wild /.

But I'm the weak minded one, ya right.
You cant believe claims of your poor education
Neither can I. it's your honesty I call into question as no one can be that thick.

No one has asked for definitions of redundant, wild, process, adaption or food. YOU have been asked countless times for the definitions of target food, redundant processes, redundant adaption, unnatural food and unnatural processes.

You play the thicko card but this shows you know only too well what you have been asked for.


Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term.


You were given an offer if you finally acted in an honest fashion and you decided to ignore it

Your finished here.
edit on 1-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blargcakes
Why are people still posting in this thread? I thought most informed people had learned evolution was proven to be fake decades ago? This is what evolution teaches.

Fish were swimming in the ocean millions of years ago (don't ask evolutionists were they came from, unless you want to see them cry). one fish decides to flop onto land. it does and dies. other fish see this, and do the same. for thousands of years millions of fish kill themselves by flopping onto land. Until one day, one fish can breathe air (lol wtf?) and that fish flops around and dies because it can't eat or move efficently. now for thousands of years fish are flopping around on land and dying a few days later until one day another fish grows legs (lol wtf?) this legged fish runs around and eats bugs (lol where did they come from?). after thousands of years of dying in the winter, another fish grows fur (lol wtf) and becomes a monkey (lmao).

that is what evolution teaches. as you can see, it makes no sense and for that reason it is considered a funny science fiction plot, but is not considered a true scientific fact


SO TRUE!!!

Why are they not able to explain how humans, being the newest animal on the block, has went through several cycles of evolution, yet the many species that have outlived us have went through 1 maybe 2, some 0???

Humans simply do not fit into the 'evolution model'. We have not been here long enough. If we were to wait to evolution to change from a primate to a man building rockets going to the moon, then we surely have been quantum leaped, as that is waaaay too short a time period.

What do I think happened?

The primate, already having evolved over 2 million years, was genetically manipulated by an advanced race (another story, another day).

But you see, if it took the primate a few million years to get to stage one, explain how the human went through several stages, and we are not even a million years old.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Why are they not able to explain how humans, being the newest animal on the block, has went through several cycles of evolution, yet the many species that have outlived us have went through 1 maybe 2, some 0???

Explain what you mean by "several cycles of evolution". I swear people just talk out of their backside about this stuff.


Humans simply do not fit into the 'evolution model'. We have not been here long enough. If we were to wait to evolution to change from a primate to a man building rockets going to the moon, then we surely have been quantum leaped, as that is waaaay too short a time period.

No. Just no. Humans fit perfectly into the evolution model. We've found DOZENS of intermediate species of hominids, and it goes back around 7 million years. Obviously if you even did the bare minimum reading on human evolution you'd know this, but yeah, let's just assume that creationist sites are true without any scientific evidence whatsoever to support it.


But you see, if it took the primate a few million years to get to stage one, explain how the human went through several stages, and we are not even a million years old.
Again, you say "stages of evolution" as if it's not slow change over time. Explain yourself and back it up with facts, please.

The post you responded to is a complete lie, and is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
edit on 1-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You cant believe claims of your poor education Neither can I. it's your honesty I call into question as no one can be that thick.

No one has asked for definitions of redundant, wild, process, adaption or food. YOU have been asked countless times for the definitions of target food, redundant processes, redundant adaption, unnatural food and unnatural processes.

You play the thicko card but this shows you know only too well what you have been asked for.
Your understanding of the english language is obviously tilted. Like making an assumption that when you combine two words together it has to have a significiant meaning other than the basic meaning already known about the words.

Your wrong.

Terms can also be a single word, or multiple words, and they can have basic understanding that is well known of the words. I even removed the issue of semantics by directing you to the exact meaning in the definitions. Now your claiming that they don't apply because I'm sending you to single words, but they are the terms used in all references. The only time anyone would have reason to believe that a definition does not follow the normal path of words and terms, is when it's stated to be so. I never stated that was the case so you have no reason to believe that is the case.




Your failing to realize that use of the word natural is not a whimsicile thing, there are very strict standards that allow someone to use that term.


You were given an offer if you finally acted in an honest fashion and you decided to ignore it

Your finished here.
We were finished a long time ago back when you were asking for definitions. Anyone that needs definition of words like Most, or unnatural, seriously has something wrong with them. We were also done when you purposely gave the example of a house sparrow that has a relationship with our homes, and trying to pass it off as a sparrow that has a relationship with people. Total dishonesty. As you can see you lost in this debate a long time ago. Also not being able to surface with any target food for humans is yet another set back. You claim its from not understanding the terms, but that was a made up excuse, and 54 pages later to contest them is proof.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 





Humans simply do not fit into the 'evolution model'. We have not been here long enough. If we were to wait to evolution to change from a primate to a man building rockets going to the moon, then we surely have been quantum leaped, as that is waaaay too short a time period.

What do I think happened?

The primate, already having evolved over 2 million years, was genetically manipulated by an advanced race (another story, another day).

But you see, if it took the primate a few million years to get to stage one, explain how the human went through several stages, and we are not even a million years old.
You got that right that we don't fit into the evolution model. You do know of course that according to wiki. Speciation has only ever been observed in some aquatic life, some bacteria, some viruses and according to some sites some insects. I don't know where peeps get off just making assumptions that this can magically leap over into humans.

Now you also agree that with the model of evolution that there isn't enough time there to make it happen. I also agree with you and feel that the time needed to take us from apes to humans is in the order of trillions of years, and well the earth isn't that old so guess what that means? It either didn't happen or it didn't happen on earth.

I have always believed that we were placed here. I also like your idea that its possible that apes were manipulated. It does seem to be the closest thing to the truth at this point. If this happened its still in the order of intervention.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 370  371  372    374  375  376 >>

log in

join