Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

They are both scientific theories classified as such because they fullfil the same stringent requirements...and in both cases we actively apply the theories

And a law isn't a theory....so you can't compare it.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I'll wait for you to respond to my most recent post before I handle yours. While I wait, I have one question for you regarding target food:

What would be the difference if you realized nothing here were were eating its target food?

If it helps you clarify, assume that even if some or all animals used to have target foods here the environment has been so "out of balance" for so long that all the animals currently living here have long since lost their target foods and are now making do with non target alternatives. ie anteaters used to be eating target bugs similar to ants but easier to catch and more nutritious, but those went extinct so they make do with ants.

reply to post by colin42

(Yes not ya)I notice you have missed out balanced. You claimed it to be an example of a balanced eco system.

Lets just put it this way, it is sold with that idea being in mind. Ok does that clear it up?

( Wrong not wrond)Nope. You’re wrong. I proved with supporting evidence the sealed globe was far from a balanced eco system.

But it's not about your opinion, its about what the advertisters are selling them as.

(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:

Simple, it's not about you're observation, its about what they sell them as.

(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

Why is Suppose capitalized? It depends on how you look at it. They are marketing as a balanced tank, and to a degree it is. It's just not an ideal balance. Now if they had a lot more life in there to balance it out, it would be better but it would also be way more complicated.. It's still considered balanced as they are able to produce and market them as such.

reply to post by colin42

(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

Well I'm not posting links using the link option as I have never gotten them to work but will try again..

Googles natural definition

reply to post by mastermindkar

I'll wait for you to respond to my most recent post before I handle yours. While I wait, I have one question for you regarding target food:

If I missed a reply, please repost it as I didn't find it.

What would be the difference if you realized nothing here were were eating its target food?

I wouldn't have been able to figure it out, thats for sure. The problem is that we are all taught that earth is pristine, and in fact its not. Things are really messed up.

If it helps you clarify, assume that even if some or all animals used to have target foods here the environment has been so "out of balance" for so long that all the animals currently living here have long since lost their target foods and are now making do with non target alternatives. ie anteaters used to be eating target bugs similar to ants but easier to catch and more nutritious, but those went extinct so they make do with ants.

Well I'm pretty sure the ant was always his target food. You might stretch it and say termites, but they are basically ants as well. He's just to well equipped to handle the ants period.

If you have had a chance to think about it, you probably noticed that humans have no target food. Now according to evolutionists, this is normal as when a species evolves it will adapt and just eat what ever it finds. Well at least they got 1/4 of the picture correct. Adapting is usually a sign of things that have gone wrong. As is with the example of humans. All we do is adapt, sometimes we adapt, to adapt in order to adapt. Which is what I call redundant adaptation.

A good example of that is our Shoes. We needed to make shoes as our feet do not match the terrain. Some say not true in certain areas, but then your saying we were only suppose to live in certain areas. Anyhow mother nature gave us foot fungus after creating shoes, so we had to adapt yet again by making socks. It's redundant. A small point but shows in a small way how we aren't from here. All we will ever do in our lives here is adapt, we have to and we have no choice.

Evolution has claimed the definition of adaptation in with evolution, but the fact is if we had evolved correctly, we wouldn't have to adapt, so its a contradiction.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Lets just put it this way, it is sold with that idea being in mind. Ok does that clear it up?

The idea comes from a solid place. The space between your ears. You have been shown balance in nature is a false and discredited concept. Balance of nature

The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited, as it has been found that chaotic changes in population levels are common, but nevertheless the idea continues to be popular.

But it's not about your opinion, its about what the advertisters are selling them as.

(Advertisers not advertisters) Cigarettes were advertised as sexy, grown up and good for you. So are you telling me that the advertisers of a product are the ones you should trust? Says more about you than you know

It is not about my opinion. It was not about my opinion as soon as I supplied you with supporting evidence, links and quotes from those links. What this is about, based on your opinion only you rejected the proof you were given showing you to be wrong as you always do when you are challenged.

Simple, it's not about you're observation, its about what they sell them as.

(It’s not its and your not you're)As I wrote above. It was not about my observations as soon as I supplied you with the supporting evidence, links and quotes from those links So both your comments so far are false.

Why is Suppose capitalized?

Ask at school Monday

It depends on how you look at it. They are marketing as a balanced tank, and to a degree it is. It's just not an ideal balance. Now if they had a lot more life in there to balance it out, it would be better but it would also be way more complicated.. It's still considered balanced as they are able to produce and market them as such.

What a fudge and a pi$$ poor fudge at that.

1. From your statements it is either a balanced system as sold
or
2. A man made balanced globe is impossible

There is no such thing as not ideal, how you look at it, the degree or considered to be by the manufacturer even if it is not. It is either a balanced eco system in a globe or it is not. Your statements conflict so at least one is incorrect. Man up and say which one just once in this thread try the honest route.

You also failed to answer why you implied in your post that you used the sealed globe to demonstrate to me that the globe could not be a balanced sealed unit. Explain below again:

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.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

(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

Well I'm not posting links using the link option as I have never gotten them to work but will try again..

Googles natural definition

The only time you seem able to supply a link is when it suits you. So you are even cherry picking when you will supply a link to your sources or not. Highly dishonest

You have demonstrated you know how to supply links and for the 9th time in a row your refusal to supply your link shows you have something to hide. Don’t bother to play your dishonest game further as I have already said. I have shown you to be highly dishonest and you have lost the point. Dismissed

reply to post by itsthetooth


My question: "What would be the difference if you realized nothing here were were eating its target food?"
Your response:

I wouldn't have been able to figure it out, thats for sure.

You are positive that target foods exist, but you can't tell me what difference it would make if they didn't exist?

reply to post by itsthetooth


This is the post you missed:

Here is some good insight to all of this for you. Take a look at the humans bodies needs for calcium by age. I always assumed as a baby we need most of the calcium but in fact our need for calcium actually just goes up with age.
Now you would have to eat them daily, or should eat them daily, how were we suppose to feed this supply when we probably had no boats to start?

That's a good question. I have a better question: How did we? Humans have been on this planet for tens of thousands of years. How did they survive here before milk, and cheese, and boats? How do those primitve tribes living to this day in the amazon get by without a dairy farm? Old age is largely irrelevant in nature, because the vast majority of animals don't live to old age and the ones that do not significantly contribute to the species. Even ant eaters. www.sandiegozoo.org... Giant Ant Eaters live longer in captivity than in nature eating unnatural processed food that still provides them with nutrients they need. Even if anteaters were provided with a target food, we made a better one.

Well that was really the whole point right there, I don't think he is special by any means, in fact I think he is as normal as it gets, but most everything else is where the problem is. We are the oddballs. It only makes sense that he would be so fine tuned for hunting ants, its his job.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are assuming without evidence that just because an anteater is extremely specialized, all animals including humans must also be extreme specialists. Given how well nature's many generalists survive there is no reason to believe this. Our hands are meant to flexible, that is their point. With our hands we can pick fruit, dig, swim, climb, hunt, farm, and make food for ant eaters thats just as good if not better than ants. The purpose of humans (philosphical musings not withstandig), as with other animals, is to survive and propogate lest we would cease to exist. We are already wildly good at this. You say that somewhere there is a lifestyle that suits us (but you don't know what it would be) when our hunter/gatherer lifestyle suited us just fine. You are failing to provide an alternative to an already functional lifestyle, and that is why people don't believe you.

You said:

Anyhow, to believe that this is the only species we have a relationship with, which I'm going to agree with at ths point, you would have to also agree that our whole purpose in life is to satisfy these litttle critters, and as you can see there seems to be more missing to our picture.

In response to me saying: "You are wrong. While many species of parasites are not picky, many are. Example:"
Crab lice are not the only human specific parasite, I did not say they were. There are over 1000 species that prey on humans, (humaworm.com...) and well over 100 of those are specific only to humans. Of those human specific parasites, many are obligate parasites of mulitple creatures, which is to say that during their life cycle they must pass through multiple organisms.
As an example, there is a liver fluke which live southeast asia which as an adult preys on humans. It lays its eggs in the our intestines and they pass out of us in our feces. The eggs in the feces are consumed by a particular species of snail, and hatch inside the snail becoming larvae. The larvae waits in snail until the snail is eaten by a grazing mammal, such as a cow or pig. When the cow or pig is eaten by a human the larvae makes its way to human's liver and forms its adult stage, whereupon it begins to reproduce. If we were brought here, the fluke, snail, and mammals were too, because the fluke can't survive without each stage in its life cycle being completed. At the same time, those snails are host to parasites which in turn prey on other animals later. There are more parasitic organisms on earth than there are straight herbivores or carnivores, and they form a vast web of interdependencies which humans are as much a part of as any other animal. I strongly recommend you research parasitology (try this book for starters: www.amazon.com...) and consider its implications in nature.

Originally posted by mastermindkar
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

My question: "What would be the difference if you realized nothing here were were eating its target food?"
Your response:

I wouldn't have been able to figure it out, thats for sure.

You are positive that target foods exist, but you can't tell me what difference it would make if they didn't exist?

Welcome to tooth's fantasy ride, where everything's upside down, pigs fly, target food rains from the sky, chickens are already roast and doing the moonwalk, and giraffes drink milkshakes through giant straws.

If you wanna argue against tooth, just make up some random word and definition that debunks his claim. Here, I'll show you:

Target food isn't a requirement for evolution because they beings on this planet including humans only require type-3b target food, which includes everything that is even remotely eatable. So you see, target food isn't necessary because of my made up word and definition.

It's a BRILLIANT way to argue. Think you're behind and losing the argument? Don't worry, just make something up

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mastermindkar
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

My question: "What would be the difference if you realized nothing here were were eating its target food?"
Your response:

I wouldn't have been able to figure it out, thats for sure.

You are positive that target foods exist, but you can't tell me what difference it would make if they didn't exist?

Welcome to tooth's fantasy ride, where everything's upside down, pigs fly, target food rains from the sky, chickens are already roast and doing the moonwalk, and giraffes drink milkshakes through giant straws.

If you wanna argue against tooth, just make up some random word and definition that debunks his claim. Here, I'll show you:

Target food isn't a requirement for evolution because they beings on this planet including humans only require type-3b target food, which includes everything that is even remotely eatable. So you see, target food isn't necessary because of my made up word and definition.

It's a BRILLIANT way to argue. Think you're behind and losing the argument? Don't worry, just make something up

edit on 8-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

And more to the point Mindkar.

If you fall for tooths attempt to revisit why shoes show evolution is false for around the 5th time then you on your own. God save your soles.

Top Ten Reasons Why Darwin is Wrong

www.afa.net...

www.ucg.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

reply to post by r2d246
Darwin is dead (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) That is 130 years dead and his theory first made public around 150 years ago.

Things change in 150 years. Your linked sources are frankly weak. The first video states evolution explains how life was created. There was no need to watch further as the understanding of the maker of the film was lacking to say the least.

Evolution does not and cannot explain how life started.

Your second linked to Dr. Kent Hovind You really need to look at better sources than this discredited, charlatan who could not even be trusted to pay his taxes.

Sorry to be so dismissive but when you offer information (which was wrong BTW) on a man dead for 130 years and the other a convicted faker you should not expect anything more.

Originally posted by r2d246

Top Ten Reasons Why Darwin is Wrong

www.afa.net...

www.ucg.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You might wanna get your scientific information from scientific sources instead of pseudo-scientific websites

reply to post by colin42

The idea comes from a solid place. The space between your ears. You have been shown balance in nature is a false and discredited concept. Balance of nature

What do you mean I have been shown, exactly how, and what was I shown.

The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited, as it has been found that chaotic changes in population levels are common, but nevertheless the idea continues to be popular

Sounds a lot like evolution, anyhow, its been discredited, not disproven, get a dictionary and look up the difference.

(Advertisers not advertisters) Cigarettes were advertised as sexy, grown up and good for you. So are you telling me that the advertisers of a product are the ones you should trust? Says more about you than you know

Depends on how you look at it. If your question here is if cigarettes can be sexy grown up and good for you, they are probably telling the truth in some sense. I know a lot of people that need to smoke because they feel the need to. It makes them feel better when they do.

It is not about my opinion. It was not about my opinion as soon as I supplied you with supporting evidence, links and quotes from those links. What this is about, based on your opinion only you rejected the proof you were given showing you to be wrong as you always do when you are challenged.

This obviously is just your biased opinion, and you obviously don't smoke.

Proof would be nice over your opinion.

(It’s not its and your not you're)As I wrote above. It was not about my observations as soon as I supplied you with the supporting evidence, links and quotes from those links So both your comments so far are false.

But the fact is they sell them as a balanced system, so you are wrong.

Your bickering about how much of a balance it is. They never said it was a perfect balance, get over it and move on.

What a fudge and a pi$$ poor fudge at that.

1. From your statements it is either a balanced system as sold
or
2. A man made balanced globe is impossible

There is no such thing as not ideal, how you look at it, the degree or considered to be by the manufacturer even if it is not. It is either a balanced eco system in a globe or it is not. Your statements conflict so at least one is incorrect. Man up and say which one just once in this thread try the honest route.

You also failed to answer why you implied in your post that you used the sealed globe to demonstrate to me that the globe could not be a balanced sealed unit. Explain below again:

This is why your failing so bad in understanding all this. Balance is possible, except that our planet is not pristine. Your making an assumption that our planet is in its normal order and its pristine, when its not.

I can tell that you have not given this any serious thought, about balance. When you do you will realize that life will only exist when there is a balance of some type. Now its true that our planet is out of balance and this is also why there is a lot of extinction going on, if it were in balance there wouldn't be extinction. Your taking the eye of things normally being out of balance just becaue you happen to see that, but that is false, its not normal.

The only time you seem able to supply a link is when it suits you. So you are even cherry picking when you will supply a link to your sources or not. Highly dishonest

You have demonstrated you know how to supply links and for the 9th time in a row your refusal to supply your link shows you have something to hide. Don’t bother to play your dishonest game further as I have already said. I have shown you to be highly dishonest and you have lost the point. Dismissed

Duh, I am supporting my own views.

Duh, I am supporting my own views.

Oh, nobody's doubting that you support your own views...you just chose not to support them through logic and rationality, that's all

reply to post by mastermindkar

My question: "What would be the difference if you realized nothing here were were eating its target food?"
Your response:


I wouldn't have been able to figure it out, thats for sure.



You are positive that target foods exist, but you can't tell me what difference it would make if they didn't exist?

LIfe cant exist without it. Our ability to adapt is the only exception but that doesn't put things in balance. So we will always struggle.
It would mean that things are crazy out of balance.

This also gets complicated because it dives into the possibility of someone replanting life on this planet. Some people don't believe in that possibility, but its looking like its happened a few times. Transpermia is the idea of other life being brought to a planet. I'm a firm believer in it. There are strong indications of it in the bible as well, which could explain the need to document it.

reply to post by mastermindkar

That's a good question. I have a better question: How did we? Humans have been on this planet for tens of thousands of years. How did they survive here before milk, and cheese, and boats? How do those primitve tribes living to this day in the amazon get by without a dairy farm? Old age is largely irrelevant in nature, because the vast majority of animals don't live to old age and the ones that do not significantly contribute to the species. Even ant eaters. www.sandiegozoo.org... Giant Ant Eaters live longer in captivity than in nature eating unnatural processed food that still provides them with nutrients they need. Even if anteaters were provided with a target food, we made a better one

I wasn't aware of anything solid that tells us how long we have live here. Not to be confused with our DNA indicating that we are over 200,000 years old. Which is seriously a problem for anything that thinks god put them here 7,000 years ago. Your just missing over 193,000 years of your lineage.

Your questions are pretty simple to answer. The question seem to be more about how could we have existed missing so much of things that are needed. The skinny on that is that you can survive on suppliments, which is what we are doing even now. However you won't live as long and wont be as healthy and you will have to work harder to get what food there is to the table. In essence we are struggleing.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are assuming without evidence that just because an anteater is extremely specialized, all animals including humans must also be extreme specialists. Given how well nature's many generalists survive there is no reason to believe this. Our hands are meant to flexible, that is their point. With our hands we can pick fruit, dig, swim, climb, hunt, farm, and make food for ant eaters thats just as good if not better than ants. The purpose of humans (philosphical musings not withstandig), as with other animals, is to survive and propogate lest we would cease to exist. We are already wildly good at this. You say that somewhere there is a lifestyle that suits us (but you don't know what it would be) when our hunter/gatherer lifestyle suited us just fine. You are failing to provide an alternative to an already functional lifestyle, and that is why people don't believe you.

Its not always a good comparison as humans are a way different species than anything else on this planet with the ability to adapt.

Purpose in life is paramount. Species will have purpose and there will be order and from that will come balance. Your never going to convince me that there isn't suppose to be purpose as it goes against the idea of production of life, and balance. The fact that some things have purpose and some don't is because of things being out of balance. There is no way your ever going to convince me that an ant eaters special ears for hearing ants, and special snout for sniffing out ants and special tounge for grabbing ants, and special claws for tearing up their homes is just by evolution or chance. He was planned and why would he be so special from all the other life here?

And see the problem with parasites is that it is entirely possible that we brought therm here when we were transplanted here. After all they do live in us. The original idea of trying to find human specific related species was to help prove we are from here, and that I'm wrong, but with parasites its hard to prove.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Welcome to tooth's fantasy ride, where everything's upside down, pigs fly, target food rains from the sky, chickens are already roast and doing the moonwalk, and giraffes drink milkshakes through giant straws.

If you wanna argue against tooth, just make up some random word and definition that debunks his claim. Here, I'll show you:

Target food isn't a requirement for evolution because they beings on this planet including humans only require type-3b target food, which includes everything that is even remotely eatable. So you see, target food isn't necessary because of my made up word and definition.

It's a BRILLIANT way to argue. Think you're behind and losing the argument? Don't worry, just make something up

I'm glad to see that your admiting that it proves evolution wrong.

Evolution has already been proved wrong by creationists time and time again. However, the evolution crowd will, and I have seen it myself here and elsewhere, ignore the points that count, and respond only to those points which appeal their profound logic and shallow understanding. Further, most of them, at least the amateur ones who for some reason consider themselves gatekeepers, indulge in insults, belittling, and ad hominem attacks. Is this the best they can do?

No, I am not going to attempt it. The whole evolution vs creation debate is a box, a pitfall, where the evolutionists know they can beat up on most creationists. I, for one, refuse to step into it. The whole debate is a smokescreen for a deeper issue anyway, and that I can and will deal with. Evolution was adopted in the beginning, and continues to be adopted today, by those who want to remove God from their personal world. They just can not tolerate sound doctrine, or their responsibility toward a God who demands worship and obedience. The thin veneer of intellectual respectability is an added bonus for them. Evolutionists are careful to keep the debate within a defined box, but I defy the box. The behavior of evolutionists in this forum indicated just what kind of people they really are.

There - the gauntlet is thrown down.