Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 494
31
<< 491  492  493    495  496  497 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 






You did not write the OP for this thread. Again an inacurate statement.
Which is why I didn't indicate that I was referring to this thread.





You have again offered no evidence. End of story which is all you ever offer. Childish stories. Go back to your thread and write more nonsense about milk. Children
Your just jealous that evolution doesn't have as many valid facts as target food does.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I have purposely posted the questions separately for you to answer. Do not combine your answer into one post with my other questions.

Question. What is the result of an organism not having a 'target food'?

Your answer is:



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I have purposely posted the questions separately for you to answer. Do not combine your answer into one post with my other questions.

1. Question. How does an organism digest its 'target food'?
2. Question. How does an organism digest its non 'target food'?

Your answer is:



edit on 27-8-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Another link to google front page. How hilarious. Your one of lifes natural clowns. (another valid use of natural that involves man, well you anyway)
The link works fine for me, which tells me your just trying to claim it doesn't work because you can't face the emberrasment of being wrong. It doesn't matter, thats why I shared the definition as well.




Numerous terms redirect here. For other uses, see Mother (disambiguation), Mom (disambiguation), Mommy (disambiguation), Mum (disambiguation), Motherhood (disambiguation), and Mothering (magazine).

Mum (disambiguation)
This is just more proof you do not understand what constitutes a definition and the many ways a word can be defined.

You also managed to again avoid giving an answer even to this.
It must just be that google dictionary is not batting for you at all, as every definition seems to argue with your belief. Oh well, I like google.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have purposely posted the questions separately for you to answer. Do not combine your answer into one post with my other questions.

Question. What is the result of an organism not having a 'target food'?

Your answer is:
That depends on the intellignece of the organism which would greatly affect his probability to adapt, and the remaining food choices.

If he is able to adapt, like humans have, he will survive, but will suffer a reduction in the quality of life from lack of proper nourishment, in addition to extra work that will be needed to aquire the food.

If he is not able to adapt, or has no simular food to adapt to, then he will starve and die.
edit on 27-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have purposely posted the questions separately for you to answer. Do not combine your answer into one post with my other questions.

1. Question. How does an organism digest its 'target food'?
2. Question. How does an organism digest its non 'target food'?

Your answer is:
1.Through only natural methods that he is equipped to utilize.
.
2.Typically through the use of excessive processes, and the non target food will not be able to provide the nourishment that he needs. As a result he will suffer a reduction in the quality of life.
edit on 27-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





I have purposely posted the questions separately for you to answer. Do not combine your answer into one post with my other questions.

Question. What is the result of an organism not having a 'target food'?

Your answer is:
That depends on the intellignece of the organism which would greatly affect his probability to adapt, and the remaining food choices.

If he is able to adapt, like humans have, he will survive, but will suffer a reduction in the quality of life from lack of proper nourishment, in addition to extra work that will be needed to aquire the food.

If he is not able to adapt, or has no simular food to adapt to, then he will starve and die.
edit on 27-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
Then target air trumps target food because everything no matter how intelligent dies when its target air is removed within minutes.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





I have purposely posted the questions separately for you to answer. Do not combine your answer into one post with my other questions.

1. Question. How does an organism digest its 'target food'?
2. Question. How does an organism digest its non 'target food'?

Your answer is:
1.Through only natural methods that he is equipped to utilize.
.
2.Typically through the use of excessive processes, and the non target food will not be able to provide the nourishment that he needs. As a result he will suffer a reduction in the quality of life.
edit on 27-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
1. Humans digest their food through natural means utilising what they are equipped with so that answer makes no sense.

2. Humans digest their food the same way as every other animal. The food that humans eat provides the nourishment they need and 9 billion people on this planet prove that.

So from what you say the stomach does not fail if the food is target food or not yet put anything in our lungs that is not target air and we choke and die. Target air again trumps target food.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Then target air trumps target food because everything no matter how intelligent dies when its target air is removed within minutes.
Only if you can prove there is no such air on other planets.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





1. Humans digest their food through natural means utilising what they are equipped with so that answer makes no sense.
Exactly, as your question made no sense, I was just fitting you with the best answer for the poor question.




2. Humans digest their food the same way as every other animal. The food that humans eat provides the nourishment they need and 9 billion people on this planet prove that.
With some exceptions, humans use a labratory to test what our bodys need, and to also test the food to see what its good for and its values. How do animals do it?




So from what you say the stomach does not fail if the food is target food or not yet put anything in our lungs that is not target air and we choke and die. Target air again trumps target food.
You dont believe in fair comparisons. You can't test your theory as you have't left earth to test out an alien athmosphere.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Then target air trumps target food because everything no matter how intelligent dies when its target air is removed within minutes.
Only if you can prove there is no such air on other planets.

I can prove that there are atmosphere's on other planets just none where we can survive.

I can prove the one here on earth is just right for us and all the other life forms that share this planet with us.

That is a lot more proof than you have for target food and so target air wins out again.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


1. Question. How does an organism digest its 'target food'?

1.Through only natural methods that he is equipped to utilize.

1. Humans digest their food through natural means utilising what they are equipped with so that answer makes no sense.

Exactly, as your question made no sense, I was just fitting you with the best answer for the poor question.
My question made perfect sense to anyone with even a minimum of intelligence. Food does not disappear when you swallow. It has to be digested and passed though the system.

So your answer of 'only by natural methods' is the one that makes no sense and your latest answer shows you have no answer. Just more of your low brow replies.


2. Question. How does an organism digest its non 'target food'?

2.Typically through the use of excessive processes, and the non target food will not be able to provide the nourishment that he needs. As a result he will suffer a reduction in the quality of life.

2. Humans digest their food the same way as every other animal. The food that humans eat provides the nourishment they need and 9 billion people on this planet prove that.

2. With some exceptions, humans use a labratory to test what our bodys need, and to also test the food to see what its good for and its values. How do animals do it?
What nonsense. Whether food is tested or not has no bearing on how our digestive system deals with the food we eat.

So again you have replied with your low brow nonsense to avoid giving any real answer because you have no clue.


So from what you say the stomach does not fail if the food is target food or not yet put anything in our lungs that is not target air and we choke and die. Target air again trumps target food.

You dont believe in fair comparisons. You can't test your theory as you have't left earth to test out an alien athmosphere.
Of course it is not a fair comparison. I can show target air is a fact and can demonstrate that fact in many ways. You have shown no evidence to support the mythical target food at all.

I don’t have to stand in the rain to know it is raining or to deduce if I did I would get wet.

We have sent probes to other planets. We can do spectral analysis of planets in different star systems. None of the planets we know about show an atmosphere that would support human life so until we can.

This planet has a target air that is perfect for ALL life on it. Target food cannot be shown to even exist yet we have many food sources and many consumers of that food.

Target air has a lot more going for it than target food which so far has nothing and the only way you can dispute that is supply the evidence for your nonsense claims.

DO THAT.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I can prove that there are atmosphere's on other planets just none where we can survive.
You don't know that.




I can prove the one here on earth is just right for us and all the other life forms that share this planet with us.
You don't know that either. Your making assumptions based on your opinion, I'm not interested in your opinion.




That is a lot more proof than you have for target food and so target air wins out again.
If there were over a billion different types of air here, I might agree with you.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





1. Question. How does an organism digest its 'target food'?

1.Through only natural methods that he is equipped to utilize.

1. Humans digest their food through natural means utilising what they are equipped with so that answer makes no sense.

Exactly, as your question made no sense, I was just fitting you with the best answer for the poor question.

My question made perfect sense to anyone with even a minimum of intelligence. Food does not disappear when you swallow. It has to be digested and passed though the system.
Well I agree that it sounded constructed from someone with minimal intelligence. Of course the food has to pass through the system, is there some type of purpose behind this question?

My answer makes total sense, a species that is not designed to digest nuts, will not have the proper mechanisims to do so.

Just as an example.




So your answer of 'only by natural methods' is the one that makes no sense and your latest answer shows you have no answer. Just more of your low brow replies.
Sure it does, a species processing those same nuts to try to digest them, can fail.

Just like humans and red meat.




What nonsense. Whether food is tested or not has no bearing on how our digestive system deals with the food we eat.

So again you have replied with your low brow nonsense to avoid giving any real answer because you have no clue.
No you just werent expecting a whitty reply.




So from what you say the stomach does not fail if the food is target food or not yet put anything in our lungs that is not target air and we choke and die. Target air again trumps target food.

You dont believe in fair comparisons. You can't test your theory as you have't left earth to test out an alien athmosphere.

Of course it is not a fair comparison. I can show target air is a fact and can demonstrate that fact in many ways. You have shown no evidence to support the mythical target food at all.
The theory of target food is completly backed up by the fact that species have a scheduled diet.




I don’t have to stand in the rain to know it is raining or to deduce if I did I would get wet.

We have sent probes to other planets. We can do spectral analysis of planets in different star systems. None of the planets we know about show an atmosphere that would support human life so until we can.
I see, and your assuming we checked them all out.




This planet has a target air that is perfect for ALL life on it. Target food cannot be shown to even exist yet we have many food sources and many consumers of that food.
There is no doubt that this athmosphere is somewhat fitting for us, but thats not to say there isn't a better one.




Target air has a lot more going for it than target food which so far has nothing and the only way you can dispute that is supply the evidence for your nonsense claims.
Unlike target food, you have nothing to compare it to, or with.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If we didn't use it every step of the way, I would probably believe you. The problem is that some species on this planet also have some smarts, just not as much, so how would you explalin that? They just werent' supposed to live I guess.

Huh? Other creature are intelligent, but not nearly as intelligent as humans. That doesn't mean they aren't supposed to live
. They are here, therefor your silly statement is false. I said that the primary survival strength of humans is intellect. For other creatures they don't need the intellect like we do as they have other features that help them adapt.


We know our target food didn't go extinct as there would be documentation of what this food used to be.

Um, no. Written history only goes back 10,000 years or so, which is only 10% of our existence on the planet.


In addition the new food we are eating would be listed as such and such food to replace such and such food which also hasn't happened.

Keep making stuff up.
It would be listed somewhere. Get outta here. Where is the documentation from the planet we came from that lists this food? Sorry man, that's a WEAK argument like everything else.


How is it we can have documentation about how we supposedly got here but nothing about food missing.

??? What documentation? The bible that clearly says man was created on earth? You need to provide this documentation instead of making up blatant lies. You still haven't sourced your bible quotes that claim we aren't from earth. Less lies, more evidence, please.


I get that you think our ability to adapt is our purpose in life. Abilitys are just like seeing or hearing, they should be considered natural in their correct einviroment, but we are not in our correct enviroment.

For god's sake man, read a biology 101 book. Senses are not abilities.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I can prove that there are atmosphere's on other planets just none where we can survive.

You don't know that.
I base my information on the evidence at hand. We now know of many planets and what we know of them is that they would not support our type of life.

You base your information on a fantasy you made up around a book based on a fantasy and you have the cheek to challenge my views
Classic


I can prove the one here on earth is just right for us and all the other life forms that share this planet with us.

You don't know that either. Your making assumptions based on your opinion, I'm not interested in your opinion.
I can prove it in 3 minutes. Isolate yourself from the target air around you and see how long you last.

As the oxygen levels are reduce our organs begin to lose function. Too much and we are poisoned. Try another experiment yourself, breath very fast for a while and see what happens, it is called hypo-ventilation.

Our bodies are tuned to the mixture of gases that form our atmosphere. Provide the correct amounts of oxygen via our lungs and blood for activities from sleep to vigorous exercise and all that is done instinctively

So as you can see it is not my opinion and you can prove all I have said above sitting on your chair now and doing those experiments.


That is a lot more proof than you have for target food and so target air wins out again.

If there were over a billion different types of air here, I might agree with you.
Oops! your denial is showing again.

There are billions of lungs and all evolved to breath the one target air and billions of gills all evolved to breath in target water.

What a coincidence they all function just as ours do. They supply all the bodies’ requirements to maintain a healthy level of oxygen whether at work or rest and all done by instinct. Even expels carbon dioxide from the body, that gas plants have evoled to breath.

Now I have given you in one post more evidence than you have supplied for 20+ pages in your thread and 490 pages on this thread.

I see no evidence in support of target food from you anywhere. When are you going to start or do I take it you have none?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.
edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong


I choose to have faith in creation and in my God. If I am right, I have everything to gain. If I am wrong, I have nothing to lose and have lived a good life.
Thanks for the post, OP.

~LR





top topics
 
31
<< 491  492  493    495  496  497 >>

log in

join