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: 448
31
<< 445  446  447    449  450  451 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





Have things on this planet ever been in a "correct balance?" If so, when? If we wipe out all life on the planet, we would still have inflicted a fraction of the extinctions that have occured naturally.


Every planet is suppose to be in a good balance. When you see extinctions, its a real good indication that things are really screwed up. At one time long ago, earth was in balance, and it was probably way back when the diansours roamed the earth. It's open for debate I guess but it would appear that someone has eraticated a lot of life on this planet for unknown reasons, just to colonize this planet. Thats what it looks like.
The environment may move towards a balance but can never reach it.

You have been shown this, had this explained and been given the links. Your only answer has been your opinion and exposed that you think theories like the chaos theory causes chaos.

Oh and who can forget what you claimed to be a fish and a plant in a sealed Globe as an example of a balanced system that turned out to be a red Hawaiian shrimp and algae. The sealed globe is a torture chamber for the shrimp which has a life expectancy of 25 years reduced to 18 months to 2 years where it is poisoned by its own waste and consumes its own body from hunger.

The fact that after all that you still blindly accept something that only can exist in a hypothetical world but reject evolution that has overwhelming evidence, is observable and repeatable in this world says all I need to know about you. A deluded fantasist.

BTW you attempted to troll by attacking my use of English. You spelt 'occured', 'diansours'. 'eraticated', and 'Thats' incorrectly in the space of just a few lines. FYI it is 'occurred', 'dinosaurs', 'eradicated', and 'That’s'. 'Supposed' not 'suppose', and 'it's' not 'its'.

Your bible say's let he without sin throw the first stone. You have not got the stones to win here either. Do you really want to enter that again?




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Question:

Why are we still discussing "target food", a word tooth MADE UP and a word that has NOTHING to do with evolution?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So you ignored the post from mindkar. You cannot give a definition for a word already defined such as natural. To think that you can means you are more foolish and poorly educated than you appear.
Stil doesn't explain why you choose to ignore my definitions.




Don’t play that game with me. You never supplied the link you supposedly quoted from. You have demonstrated that you know full well how to do it and why.
Oh well then here it is again.

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=ZWz4T6KBJsrArQHH87WLCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3ddc6ee 7f452a242&biw=1115&bih=541

There is the link, all you have to do is click on it.




More dishonesty from old wooden headed Pinocchio. You were asked many times to supply the definitions. You refused. You were invited to debate their use. You refused. You had your chances, in fact excessive chances but you chose to be dishonest even pretending you did not make them up. Your terms are not accepted on this thread.
Why do you lie so much, I have done nothing for about 300 pages but cram definitions on the thread, just for you to say not accepted.




Sadder still to see how deceitful you are prepared to be to defend your homemade religion to people who don’t give a hoot about it. Never will.
Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.




Ah so you have forgotten how to link again. Supplied a link to google again. So you lied about quoting from the link. You cherry picked from it at best. So supplying a link to google is failing 4 times. Pathetic Pinocchio
No actually the google search offers an edited version at first, and thats what I copied.

And even if I did cherry pick from a definition, its still part of the definition. You just like stretching things on your side a tad to much.




You never answered again. You must have more than just your opinion on why you think a lion whether created or evolved are 'not' meant to be predators
As I explained, I'm on the fence about it. When you see animals engaging in such desperate activity, its suspicious at least. There is no proof that he should not be a preditor, he is equiped to do so, so odds are against me as he appears to be in his line of work It's the desperation part that strikes up a red flag, but I could be wrong like I said.




No one mentioned lice. We were talking about the tape worm not you
What about the tape worm?




No one has come up with a unicorn either because its a nonsense just like your term. Telling me to show you a target food to prove you wrong is like asking me to provide a unicorn to show they do not exist.

You are completely gone mate. You need to go get some help and you will not get it here
Other people have tried, you just seem to be inept.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The environment may move towards a balance but can never reach it.
Exactly, and being in our 6th largest extinction right now is why. The planet can't reach a balance when its so far off.




You have been shown this, had this explained and been given the links. Your only answer has been your opinion and exposed that you think theories like the chaos theory causes chaos.
It was a matter of semantics and wording, and I know it doesn't cause chaos, but it also depends on how you look at the overall picture, to call it that.

It's the random elements that make it so.




Oh and who can forget what you claimed to be a fish and a plant in a sealed Globe as an example of a balanced system that turned out to be a red Hawaiian shrimp and algae. The sealed globe is a torture chamber for the shrimp which has a life expectancy of 25 years reduced to 18 months to 2 years where it is poisoned by its own waste and consumes its own body from hunger.
That is becasue it is a crude example of a balanced globe. As you should understand, many things are depending on many other things, so its almost impossible to make a balanced globe out of just a few species. It was the example howeer that I think you totally missed. The example was supppose to explain how things are in a delicate balance, it doesn't matter that you were able to find out they are actually in more of a delicate balance then the globe protected, the end result was the same, you understood that the shrimp was tortured as a result of missing other things. So a man made balanced globe is close to impossible, but this one is just for novelty purposes.




The fact that after all that you still blindly accept something that only can exist in a hypothetical world but reject evolution that has overwhelming evidence, is observable and repeatable in this world says all I need to know about you. A deluded fantasist
Thats a crock and you know it. The fact is if evolution were identifiable we would be hearing things from scientists where they would be able to tell us that so and so used to be this species and we confirmed that he evolved into this species, or that they isolated the gene sequence that allowed evolution to take place. The only thing evolution has is conjecture. Speciation has been witnesses in limited situations but that in itself is not proof that these changes are happening becasue of evolution. Again we would be hearing from scientists that evolution was witnessed today, and we never hear that.




Your bible say's let he without sin throw the first stone. You have not got the stones to win here either. Do you really want to enter that again?
Thats very sweet.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Why are we still discussing "target food", a word tooth MADE UP and a word that has NOTHING to do with evolution?
Because target food disproves evolution in case you have missed that tid bit.

There is no way anyone is ever going to convince me that a species doesn't have to have something to eat, or that its perfectly normal for a species just to pick up eating something else or someone elses food.

There is a serious flaw in the idea of evolution. it can't work when you have nothing to eat. The problem is that there is a lot extinction which actually does cause desperation in species eating what ever they can. This has given the false idea that this activity is normal, when its NOT.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Because target food disproves evolution in case you have missed that tid bit.


Made up words with a made up arbitrary definition you pulled out of your ass can't disprove evolution...or any other scientific theory in general



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Made up words with a made up arbitrary definition you pulled out of your ass can't disprove evolution...or any other scientific theory in general
Target food is an ideal theory, and it doesn't need a plethora of supporting theories like evolution does.

The best part is that its everywhere all around us and is easily provable unlike evolution.

In addition it puts evolution in its place. Evolution can't exist if we are all suppose to have target food, its just not possible. And to think that its ok for a new species to not have anything to eat is BAT CRAZY.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Stil doesn't explain why you choose to ignore my definitions.
Are all your replies going to be this pathetic? What am I saying; they have all been so far so why change.



Oh well then here it is again.
Why you think giving me a link to google is clever I don’t know. Are you that proud of your dishonesty you want to advertise it further?


Why do you lie so much, I have done nothing for about 300 pages but cram definitions on the thread, just for you to say not accepted.
I have never seen a definition from you Pinocchio by I have seen hundreds of lies. Your reply above just adds to that total.


No actually the google search offers an edited version at first, and thats what I copied.
You failed to supply the link to your source 7 times now what are you hiding?


And even if I did cherry pick from a definition, its still part of the definition. You just like stretching things on your side a tad to much.
Oh you are hiding the fact you cherry picked what supported you and try to suppressed what did not. Guess what that is. DISHONESTY. Your one and only answer.


As I explained, I'm on the fence about it. When you see animals engaging in such desperate activity, its suspicious at least. There is no proof that he should not be a preditor, he is equiped to do so, so odds are against me as he appears to be in his line of work It's the desperation part that strikes up a red flag, but I could be wrong like I said.
So as usual you make a really stupid statement based on the complete reverse of not only what we can observe in nature but also the whole cat family just to support your infantile fantasy. Jeeze you need help.


Other people have tried, you just seem to be inept.
What other people have tried? How is that an asnwer to my point. Try again;

You


No one is able to still come up with target food for humans, but I'm trashed, OK.


No one has come up with a unicorn either because its a nonsense just like your term. Telling me to show you a target food to prove you wrong is like asking me to provide a unicorn to show they do not exist.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Exactly, and being in our 6th largest extinction right now is why. The planet can't reach a balance when its so far off.
What do you mean by exactly? What followed has nothing to do with the point I made as usual and as usual is based on your opinion which is worse than basing something on nothing.


That is becasue it is a crude example of a balanced globe.
Nope. Its a torture chamber for the shrimp.


As you should understand, many things are depending on many other things, so its almost impossible to make a balanced globe out of just a few species.
Strangely you argued for pages that is was a balanced system. Does this mean you actually learnt something



It was the example howeer that I think you totally missed.
An example of what? Torture



The example was supppose to explain how things are in a delicate balance, it doesn't matter that you were able to find out they are actually in more of a delicate balance then the globe protected, the end result was the same, you understood that the shrimp was tortured as a result of missing other things. So a man made balanced globe is close to impossible, but this one is just for novelty purposes.
Silly me. I thought you had finally tried honesty then I read the above
.

How fake are you? You offered the 'fish and plant in a sealed globe' as an example of a balanced system. Maintained the proof was the manufacturer said so. I spent pages showing you how wrong you were and now you try that full on lie above.
You have no pride, self respect or any concept of honesty.


What followed was your usual trash opinion no reason to reply.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Made up words with a made up arbitrary definition you pulled out of your ass can't disprove evolution...or any other scientific theory in general
Target food is an ideal theory, and it doesn't need a plethora of supporting theories like evolution does.

The best part is that its everywhere all around us and is easily provable unlike evolution.

In addition it puts evolution in its place. Evolution can't exist if we are all suppose to have target food, its just not possible. And to think that its ok for a new species to not have anything to eat is BAT CRAZY.
Knock Knock ......... Any one there?

Read the reply you were given. In short it meant. YOU HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Made up words with a made up arbitrary definition you pulled out of your ass can't disprove evolution...or any other scientific theory in general
Target food is an ideal theory, and it doesn't need a plethora of supporting theories like evolution does.

The best part is that its everywhere all around us and is easily provable unlike evolution.

In addition it puts evolution in its place. Evolution can't exist if we are all suppose to have target food, its just not possible. And to think that its ok for a new species to not have anything to eat is BAT CRAZY.


Tooth, I have to ask...did you finish high school? I'm not asking this as an attack, but if your argument is that it's perfectly ok to make up random words and definitions, then I seriously question your education level. If you don't see that making up random words is laughable, I'm not sure people should take you seriously.

You're essentially doing this:

Gravity is wrong!!! It's wrong because of pixie dust. If gravity were real, there would be glowing pixie dust, but there is none!!




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh come on! I think you can give tooth a little more credit.
He would try to make it sound like he actually knows what he's talking about.

Example:
Gravity is wrong!!! If gravity were real, we would see redundant anti gravity.
This has given the false idea that gravity is normal, when its NOT.
edit on 7-7-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Are all your replies going to be this pathetic? What am I saying; they have all been so far so why change.
What has been so far, what are you talking about? Your replies? Pathetic yes.




Why you think giving me a link to google is clever I don’t know. Are you that proud of your dishonesty you want to advertise it further?
I gave a link to a google definition.




I have never seen a definition from you Pinocchio by I have seen hundreds of lies. Your reply above just adds to that total.
Now I know your lying because I purposly posted one in an external quote and you acknowledged it.




You failed to supply the link to your source 7 times now what are you hiding?


www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=FsH4T938NI3mqAGoxoCLCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3ddc6ee 7f452a242&biw=1115&bih=541




Oh you are hiding the fact you cherry picked what supported you and try to suppressed what did not. Guess what that is. DISHONESTY. Your one and only answer.
What are you talking about, what did I cherry pick?




So as usual you make a really stupid statement based on the complete reverse of not only what we can observe in nature but also the whole cat family just to support your infantile fantasy. Jeeze you need help.
Which is why I said I'm on the fence about it.




What other people have tried? How is that an asnwer to my point. Try again;
At least other people on this thread have tried to come up with target food.




No one has come up with a unicorn either because its a nonsense just like your term. Telling me to show you a target food to prove you wrong is like asking me to provide a unicorn to show they do not exist.
I wasn't asking about unicorns and there is no comparison, Target food is very real.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
All you have done is supply more lies, another link to google front page (8 times now) and denial to avoid answering.

You and your post have been dismissed as you desreve to be.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What do you mean by exactly? What followed has nothing to do with the point I made as usual and as usual is based on your opinion which is worse than basing something on nothing.
I don't know what to tell you man, I'm just commenting on your reply.




Nope. Its a torture chamber for the shrimp.
This is a perfect example of how your living in your deluded mind. I doubt very seriously if they intentionally created a torture chamber for shrimp. It makes me wonder, what was the purpose? Oh ya to create a sealed eco system.




Strangely you argued for pages that is was a balanced system. Does this mean you actually learnt something
You mean learned, and throwing in the word eco only means that it's ecological or enviromental, which it is. DUH!




An example of what? Torture
They aren't advertised or explained as torture chambers, they are in fact sold as balanced eco systems. So your wrong, you always were wrond, get over it and move on.




Silly me. I thought you had finally tried honesty then I read the above .

How fake are you? You offered the 'fish and plant in a sealed globe' as an example of a balanced system. Maintained the proof was the manufacturer said so. I spent pages showing you how wrong you were and now you try that full on lie above. You have no pride, self respect or any concept of honesty.

What followed was your usual trash opinion no reason to reply.
And they are still selling them as such, which again means your wrong, in addition to the fact that people buy them as such, so your wrong, move on get over it.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, I have to ask...did you finish high school? I'm not asking this as an attack, but if your argument is that it's perfectly ok to make up random words and definitions, then I seriously question your education level. If you don't see that making up random words is laughable, I'm not sure people should take you seriously.

You're essentially doing this:

Gravity is wrong!!! It's wrong because of pixie dust. If gravity were real, there would be glowing pixie dust, but there is none!!
You must be seriously lacking some deduction skills as its been made clear that I have been in college. Now you can't get into college unless you complete school, so this should seriously be a no brainer. However it doesn't shock me, and if you used the same common sense with evolution, I can totally see how you buy into it.

Thats only because your trying to compare the theory of gravity with evolution. Which wont work because they have nothing in common. I suggest a better one, compare it to the law of thermal dynamics. Try that one.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Oh come on! I think you can give tooth a little more credit.
He would try to make it sound like he actually knows what he's talking about.

Example:
Gravity is wrong!!! If gravity were real, we would see redundant anti gravity.
This has given the false idea that gravity is normal, when its NOT.


Redundant anti gravity, thats cute.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





All you have done is supply more lies, another link to google front page (8 times now) and denial to avoid answering.

You and your post have been dismissed as you desreve to be.
I see so because ATS wont allow the reposting of the google links, I'm lying or hiding something.

If you spent the same quality analysis on evolution, you would proably pick a different religion.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't know what to tell you man, I'm just commenting on your reply.
Nope. Your avoiding answering. Your usual tactic.



This is a perfect example of how your living in your deluded mind. I doubt very seriously if they intentionally created a torture chamber for shrimp.
(you’re not your) How come all your perfect examples are based on nothing but your deluded, simple minded opinions?


It makes me wonder, what was the purpose? Oh ya to create a sealed eco system.
(Yes not ya)I notice you have missed out balanced. You claimed it to be an example of a balanced eco system.


You mean learned,
no I meant Learnt

verb
a simple past tense and past participle of learn.
Told you before if you are going to pull someone on spelling or grammar you had best get it right. Your face must be really red.



They aren't advertised or explained as torture chambers, they are in fact sold as balanced eco systems. So your wrong, you always were wrond, get over it and move on
( Wrong not wrond)Nope. You’re wrong. I proved with supporting evidence the sealed globe was far from a balanced eco system.


And they are still selling them as such, which again means your wrong, in addition to the fact that people buy them as such, so your wrong, move on get over it.
(You’re not your) We went through this before. People sell lots of things they should not. Gullible people like you believe them.

But you have another problem you will no doubt run from. How do you justify your statement just made:


They aren't advertised or explained as torture chambers, they are in fact sold as balanced eco systems. So your wrong, you always were wrond, get over it and move on
(You’re not your and wrong not wrond)With the one you should be answering:


The example was supppose to explain how things are in a delicate balance, it doesn't matter that you were able to find out they are actually in more of a delicate balance then the globe protected, the end result was the same, you understood that the shrimp was tortured as a result of missing other things. So a man made balanced globe is close to impossible, but this one is just for novelty purposes.
(Suppose not supppose) Here you maintain a man made balanced globe is impossible. You also imply it was to show me that a balanced eco system in a sealed globe was impossible.

Now I know you have to run but please explain before you go



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





All you have done is supply more lies, another link to google front page (8 times now) and denial to avoid answering.

You and your post have been dismissed as you desreve to be.
I see so because ATS wont allow the reposting of the google links, I'm lying or hiding something.

If you spent the same quality analysis on evolution, you would proably pick a different religion.
(Deserve not desereve and probably not proably)Nope I just expect you to be honest. Well I used too. I know accept you never will be. ATS is not blocking, you are to avoid showing YOUR lie.

I could care less as I have proved my point and you have lost yours. Dismissed



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 445  446  447    449  450  451 >>

log in

join