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: 433
31
<< 430  431  432    434  435  436 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



What you mean to say is that you have your own reasons for not accepting them, which doesn't fit in with the criteria of why your not accepting them.
That is correct. You failed to supply a definition. You refused to enter into debate on its use. You lost the use of it.


You had allready slipped up and accepted them before, and were trying to come up with target food for humans, it was only after you had given it much thought and were unable after several failed attempts, that you decided to no longer accept the term. It's a dishonest approach to not being able to win a debate.
That as you well know was an attempt to show you 'target food' was a nonsense term made up by someone with a very poor grasp on the English language.

If you can quote where I accepted 'Target food' I will stand corrected. If not that is one more retraction you MUST make.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





According to the definition of your made up term "target food'. You stated that target food was not natural.
Yet just three pages ago you write
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Target food must be natural to qualify.

The only thing he has not paid attention too is the fact your made up, failed term is not accepted in this thread. End of or are you going to define it?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Also if your going to dig up old bones from 100's of pages of your failed arguments, you must link the post your referring to.
You have made way too many contradictions it's hard to keep track of them all. So, it is important you link to the exact post.
DON'T write back asking me about your contradictions! at this point you have zero credibility so it's important if your going to rehash old arguments just simply link to your original post.
Simple- that's all I'm asking.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





According to the definition of your made up term "target food'. You stated that target food was not natural.
Yet just three pages ago you write
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Target food must be natural to qualify.



Apple = natural = food


Rice = natural = target food

Insects = natural = target food

Do I really have to list all the natural food we have on this planet?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





According to the definition of your made up term "target food'. You stated that target food was not natural.
Yet just three pages ago you write
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Target food must be natural to qualify.



links please.
I'm still waiting on this
post.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What you mean to say is that you have your own reasons for not accepting them, which doesn't fit in with the criteria of why your not accepting them.

That is correct. You failed to supply a definition. You refused to enter into debate on its use. You lost the use of it.


Below are earlier sections where you didn't have a problem using the term target food.


His documents say that this alien guy gave us dominion over the animals. That means the animals are where they were put. They are in the 'Allowed areas' where they are 'supposed to be'. This is because unlike us they are not from this planet and need to be located where their 'target food' that the aliens placed is.

On the otherhand mankind who is native of this planet can go everywhere because all food is his 'target food'. This is obvious because the aliens needed us to mine gold and guess what. Gold can be found and mined all over the world and in many environments


So he now does not belong so how does the bushman survive without milk, target food, shoes, clothes, medical intervention processed food and water?


Just look at how dishonest you have been colin.

I'll wait for a retraction.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Also if your going to dig up old bones from 100's of pages of your failed arguments, you must link the post your referring to.
You have made way too many contradictions it's hard to keep track of them all. So, it is important you link to the exact post.
DON'T write back asking me about your contradictions! at this point you have zero credibility so it's important if your going to rehash old arguments just simply link to your original post.
Simple- that's all I'm asking.
Your the accuser, you can search for it.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





According to the definition of your made up term "target food'. You stated that target food was not natural.
Yet just three pages ago you write
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Target food must be natural to qualify.



Apple = natural = food


Rice = natural = target food

Insects = natural = target food

Do I really have to list all the natural food we have on this planet?
All that has been offered to tooth many times. It is his made up term it is up to him to supply its meaning/definition because until he does he just changes its meaning to suit his arguments.

There is only on way to deny his ignorance and dishonesty and that is to make him work for a living and insist he provides evidence, links and quotes from those links to back up his silly claims.

You want evidence see his post below.
It is an old worn out trick of his. Dont fall for it.

edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: Post below



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Apple = natural = food

Rice = natural = target food

Insects = natural = target food

Do I really have to list all the natural food we have on this planet?
You have not been paying attention. Natural food is only one of the criterias that it must meet.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





links please.
I'm still waiting on this
post.
There are no links, I wrote it, and share the definition many times.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





What you mean to say is that you have your own reasons for not accepting them, which doesn't fit in with the criteria of why your not accepting them.

That is correct. You failed to supply a definition. You refused to enter into debate on its use. You lost the use of it.


Below are earlier sections where you didn't have a problem using the term target food.


His documents say that this alien guy gave us dominion over the animals. That means the animals are where they were put. They are in the 'Allowed areas' where they are 'supposed to be'. This is because unlike us they are not from this planet and need to be located where their 'target food' that the aliens placed is.

On the otherhand mankind who is native of this planet can go everywhere because all food is his 'target food'. This is obvious because the aliens needed us to mine gold and guess what. Gold can be found and mined all over the world and in many environments


So he now does not belong so how does the bushman survive without milk, target food, shoes, clothes, medical intervention processed food and water?


Just look at how dishonest you have been colin.

I'll wait for a retraction.

You Are kidding right
do you see the 'target food'. That shows I was quoting you not accepting your made up term just as I did with your nonsense 'Allowed areas' and 'supposed to be'. You really have no clue about how to read the written word do you.

The last one is a list of what you say is required for man just to survive
Even when you think you are being clever you end up the clown. Nice to see you have found out how to use the back button and done a little work. Be prepared to do more.


BTW it would be nice if you finally answered the points I made back then now.


Talking of retractions where is the one you owe me? Where is the reply to your use of the bible that I have now posted twice?

edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: BTW

edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: Back button

edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Here is a more refined break down of target food.



Target food

Target food is a concept stemming from the idea that all planets are supposed to be in a balance, and within that balance, food is part of the cycle for all living things. Everything will have something to eat provided balance is in order. While it might be natural in some cases for one species to eat another, doing so to the point of extinction proves that something is wrong.

Target food must meet certain criteria to qualify as such.

First a food will be natural, natural is anything organic that is not made or caused by humankind, per its definition.

Second a target food will be a main supplement to a species, and could be observed as the only food, but might just be a larger part of a larger menu.

Third a target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. While this could prove more about extinction, adaptation and intervention, substitutes have to be considered. If a substitution has been made it will probably not be as great of a benefit to the species as the original food. A clue that might help identify a substitute is redundant adaptation to utilize that food source.

Fourth, extinction must be considered when considering target food. It is possible that extinction could cause a species to be out of food, as well as co-extinction. Which is not an automatic excuse for claiming intervention.. If a species looks elsewhere for food because of a collapse, that could knock off the food balance of several other species as well. This is why extinctions are not normal or natural.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You Are kidding right do you see the 'target food'. That shows I was quoting you not accepting your made up term just as I did with your nonsense 'Allowed areas' and 'supposed to be'. You really have no clue about how to read the written word do you.
Either way your being dishonest. Why would you use my made up term, actually several times then turn around later and claim that you don't accept it? You accepted it at first, but later on after you realized that it exposed a major flaw in the site of evolution, you just couldn't have that, so you made up the excuse that you will no longer accept it.

Good move, it shows how dishonest you have been all along. Rather than reaching for things to find the truth, becasue they don't fit evolution, you try to hide them in dishonesty.




The last one is a list of what you say is required for man just to survive Even when you think you are being clever you end up the clown. Nice to see you have found out how to use the back button and done a little work. Be prepared to do more.

BTW it would be nice if you finally answered the points I made back then now.

Talking of retractions where is the one you owe me? Where is the reply to your use of the bible that I have now posted twice?
Your going to have to repost it so I know what your talking about.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Apple = natural = food

Rice = natural = target food

Insects = natural = target food

Do I really have to list all the natural food we have on this planet?
You have not been paying attention. Natural food is only one of the criterias that it must meet.



What definition? The random one you posted above...the one you didn't even link? Based on what source?


There's plenty of food that fits that description perfectly btw...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Oh dear you have a lot still to learn. You have used the external box which signifies you are quoting from an external source. You obviously are not.

When using the external text box you are supposed to provide a link to the source. Seeing as though it is all your opinion you cannot obviously. Let us say you have made a mistake because the other option is you are again being dishonest.



Target food is a concept stemming from the idea that all planets are supposed to be in a balance, and within that balance, food is part of the cycle for all living things. Everything will have something to eat provided balance is in order. While it might be natural in some cases for one species to eat another, doing so to the point of extinction proves that something is wrong.
Not only have you lost this debate on balance many times: 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Target food must meet certain criteria to qualify as such.
OOO I am getting excited


First a food will be natural, natural is anything organic that is not made or caused by humankind, per its definition.
This is your opinion again.
'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Second a target food will be a main supplement to a species, and could be observed as the only food, but might just be a larger part of a larger menu.
We already have Staple diet that is defined and which is fully understood. Your poorly constructed drivel above comes nowhere close to afford the same understanding. Also: 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Third a target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. While this could prove more about extinction, adaptation and intervention, substitutes have to be considered. If a substitution has been made it will probably not be as great of a benefit to the species as the original food. A clue that might help identify a substitute is redundant adaptation to utilize that food source.
You have you tried to sneak in 'redundant adaption' another of your made up terms you refused to define or debate the use of. 'Your term is not accepted in this thread. Alas 'You have also not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Fourth, extinction must be considered when considering target food. It is possible that extinction could cause a species to be out of food, as well as co-extinction. Which is not an automatic excuse for claiming intervention.. If a species looks elsewhere for food because of a collapse, that could knock off the food balance of several other species as well. This is why extinctions are not normal or natural.
Utter unsupported garbage again. I thought this was meant to be defining what target food is not your uneducated opinion using your made up terms.
What an epic let down. What a tragic failure. 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Either way your being dishonest.
What do you mean, either way I am being dishonest? I was quoting you using the correct format in English grammar. Just because you have so little education you did not recognise that is your problem not mine. You made a fool of yourself but that is nothing unusual for you. Get over it.



Why would you use my made up term, actually several times then turn around later and claim that you don't accept it?
How else would I get my point across that your term was nonsense. 'Tooth that made up term that I won’t use as it will mean I have accepted it, is nonsense' or Tooth 'target food' is nonsense'? You really suck at this don’t you



You accepted it at first, but later on after you realized that it exposed a major flaw in the site of evolution, you just couldn't have that, so you made up the excuse that you will no longer accept it.
Nope. And no matter how you spin it I have never accepted it. You use the word evolution. Does that mean you accept it? As for your nonsense term 'target food' exposing a flaw in evolution I suggest you go learn about evolution. I refer you back to all these 400+ pages.


Good move, it shows how dishonest you have been all along.
It actually showcases your ignorance on many levels. The reason why the written word is so far out of your grasp to achieve any form of understanding when writing or reading. Why evolution is way above your level of understanding even when it is described at its most basic level.


Rather than reaching for things to find the truth, becasue they don't fit evolution, you try to hide them in dishonesty.
They call that 'transferred guilt'. That is your ethos, not mine.


Your going to have to repost it so I know what your talking about.
What for a 5th time? Jeeze.


edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





What historical documentation is that?

While your all happy and laughing. Where is the retraction you owe me Or are you so dishonest that you cannot bring yourself to admit your error?
The bible and what error are you talking about?

If your referring to the bible not being clear, that depends on what sections your talking about. If your making an assumption that its all bad (which I'm sure you do) based on that, you are wrong.
A blatant lie again from you.

You wrote:


But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species

For the third time: I asked: Please quote where I wrote that and if you cannot please write a retraction of your dishonest statement. You cannot change my words to suit your argument.

You have failed to show the quote because you were once again being dishonest. Now retract your statement above.

There is no excuse for the level of dishonesty you have sunk too and you entered into this thread at a very low level of honesty to begin with.

Still I take it you are do not have the morals or self respect to retract your blatent lie. A very poor picture you paint of yourself that is displayed for all to see.







edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)
5th time
edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What definition? The random one you posted above...the one you didn't even link? Based on what source?

There's plenty of food that fits that description perfectly btw...
I'm dying to hear about just one of them.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What definition? The random one you posted above...the one you didn't even link? Based on what source?

There's plenty of food that fits that description perfectly btw...
I'm dying to hear about just one of them.


Tell you what...let's trade. How about you provide the source of that definition in return for an example that fits your completely unscientific made up definition?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What definition? The random one you posted above...the one you didn't even link? Based on what source?

There's plenty of food that fits that description perfectly btw...
I'm dying to hear about just one of them.
I bet you are. Thing is there is no such thing as 'target food' until you define it.


Just to interupt your trolling. Stop running from this post and address the points I raised THIS POST
edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: tooth ache avoiding answering again



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 430  431  432    434  435  436 >>

log in

join