Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
You might be shocked to learn that Target food just might be in google one day. I have allready explained over and over that it is a made up term that I made up.

Good. Then you pretty much just debunked yourself! You can't make up a concept and claim it proves evolution wrong. You need real evidence.

Well its proven allready because the anteater and other examples show that Target food is real in some cases. Of course I allready explained due to extinctions not everything is using a target food. But its not just that, its also that species got moved around.

I have just as much proof as evolution does. We even use the idea of Target food in medical diets. So your wrong. We are always looking for the so called right diet, of course it doesn't exist.

At least not here.

I don't understand how you can believe in such a far fetched scheme like evolution but when your presented with something that is obviously real and has direction, you run for the hills. I guess its all because it does seem to back the idea of a creator, but then again thats what you get for assuming.


You've already demonstrated you don't even understand the basics of evolution, so there's no reason for me to explain it to you again. Target food is not obviously real. It's made up on the spot by you and only applies to a few creatures in all of earth's history. This thread should be closed, because 1. You haven't provided ANY evidence whatsoever to support your claim, and 2. your thread title is a blatant lie.

No the observation extends to all creatures. Everyone is supposed to have something to eat, you can at least agree on that one rigth? The only difference in what I believe in is that its refined to specifics, and you believe that chaos feeds all the life here, or that its supposed to.

There is no proof that chaos is the correct way for all species here on earth to eat. There is however proof that each species needs certain nutritional needs, therefore it would only make sense that is paired up with a fit for the need. In addition the anteater and some other life like millet for parakeets proves target food is real.

You can't possibly just believe that species are suppose to eat what ever they can find, what if that food is bad for them? Each species has a designated food source.

reply to post by Barcs


And Barcs I do understand the basics of evolution, at least what I have read about it, which is not to be confused with what others on these threads believe, or try to share.

I often refer to evolution as a creator, and that there is intelligence behind it, this is just my interpratation of it, but I know full well that its not what I have read about it.

At the same time its foolish to think that evolution is NOT a creator when it is responsible for possibly billions of species. In addition, this activity seems to be a goal, its as though there is intelligence behind evolution. How could it make billions of species and NOT be a creator? And just so you know a creator doesn't have to be a person, it can be a process as well.

reply to post by Barcs


Agreed... we should petition for this thread to go to the [HOAX!] LIES, SCAMS,& FAKES forum.

Deny ignorance!!!

The simple yet effective motto of our membership is “deny ignorance”, which signifies an effort to apply the principals of critical thought and peer review to the provocative topics covered within. More than a slogan, our members have embraced the motto as our collective cultural standard, demanding all to aspire to a higher standard. These simple two words have galvanized a broad membership that spans the spectrum from highly speculative conspiracy writers to staunch doubters. The result is a unique collaboration of diverse individuals rallying under this simple statement to learn from each other, discover new truths, and imagine new ideas that expand our minds:

reply to post by flyingfish

Agreed... we should petition for this thread to go to the [HOAX!] LIES, SCAMS,& FAKES forum.

Deny ignorance!!!

There has never been a shred of evidence to back up the plethora of hypothesis and theories that put evolution together. I can honestly say that we have evidence here, starting with anteaters, that Target Food exists.

Now it may not be the only example, but they are few and far between due to extinctions.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You're never going to prove anything about target food, because all you actually know is that an anteater is an animal well suited to eating ants. You can't know there isn't a better alternative food out there. You can't know ants are from earth. You can't know anteaters are from earth. You can't even prove that Lord of the Rings isn't the true history of earth. Fundamentally, you saw the same thing as Darwin in the Galapagos. He developed a theory based on the evidence at hand; over time the birds gradually adapted to their environment. You decided that a vast intelligence regimented the diets of all life in the universe, but our planet has been plagued by marauding alien crossbreeders for hundreds of millions of years.

Science and evolution are not troubled by this, because the only possibilities they consider are the ones for which there is evidence. Now, go ahead and tell me that you have evidence. Its in a book by unknown authors of dubious reproduction which has been read by 3 billion people but only you interpreted correctly. No wonder to you evolution is as ridiculous as anteaters climbing trees to eat bees.

reply to post by mastermindkar

You're never going to prove anything about target food, because all you actually know is that an anteater is an animal well suited to eating ants. You can't know there isn't a better alternative food out there.

Thats like saying you don't believe an anteater is specifically equipped for hunting and eating ants. You know if he wasn't designed so well to prove you wrong, I would probably agree with you. But just look at how well evolution evolved him, into specifically eating ants, then look at what we evolved into eating

You can't know ants are from earth. You can't know anteaters are from earth.

Which is exactly why all I say about it is that he is obviously in his element. Your point doesn't prove or disprove anything.

You can't even prove that Lord of the Rings isn't the true history of earth.

Well it wasn't written in biblical times so I would hardly call it a history book like the bible.

Fundamentally, you saw the same thing as Darwin in the Galapagos. He developed a theory based on the evidence at hand; over time the birds gradually adapted to their environment. You decided that a vast intelligence regimented the diets of all life in the universe, but our planet has been plagued by marauding alien crossbreeders for hundreds of millions of years.

If we didn't have a history book telling us that it happened, I would be skeptical myself.

Science and evolution are not troubled by this, because the only possibilities they consider are the ones for which there is evidence. Now, go ahead and tell me that you have evidence. Its in a book by unknown authors of dubious reproduction which has been read by 3 billion people but only you interpreted correctly. No wonder to you evolution is as ridiculous as anteaters climbing trees to eat bees.

So what that its been in reproduction, that doesn't prove that its inaccurate.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You used to be at least morbidly amusing. Now this is just pathetic.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Your peers have spoken..,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by mastermindkar

You used to be at least morbidly amusing. Now this is just pathetic.

I think whats pathetic is how not a single person can come up with a target food for humans.

Or how not a single person can come up with any species that has a natural relationship with man.

I think its even more pathetic how we have all the answers to so many question that I have had that no one has been able to answer, from the bible, but you choose to disregard it as unusable. Thats pathetic.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by mastermindkar

 

You used to be at least morbidly amusing. Now this is just pathetic.

I think whats pathetic is how not a single person can come up with a target food for humans.

Or how not a single person can come up with any species that has a natural relationship with man.

I think its even more pathetic how we have all the answers to so many question that I have had that no one has been able to answer, from the bible, but you choose to disregard it as unusable. Thats pathetic.

You can't even come up with a target food for more than 2 creatures in the entire history of earth, and you think that proves anything at all about humans? Just stop it. The only reason I even respond to you is so others are aware. You are a troll. You can't use imaginary concepts to prove science wrong. You clearly live in a fantasy world.

reply to post by Barcs

You can't even come up with a target food for more than 2 creatures in the entire history of earth, and you think that proves anything at all about humans? Just stop it. The only reason I even respond to you is so others are aware. You are a troll. You can't use imaginary concepts to prove science wrong. You clearly live in a fantasy world

There is more than one, like I said I just haven't studied the eating habbits of over 5 million species.

The ant could also have a target food called an aphid.
So now there is three, parakeets millet, anteaters ants, and ants aphids.

It's not fantasy when you can spot it in even one species.

Plus I don't understand why everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the bible also concurs with these findings.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The ant could also have a target food called an aphid.
So now there is three, parakeets millet, anteaters ants, and ants aphids.

How can that be? I already spent pages explaining to you the ant’s farm aphids. Grow fungus as a crop by gathering leaves. This makes the ant a farmer, just like humans.

In fact ants 'milk' the honey dew Aphids exude so they are eating the milk of another animal which you say counts them out.

So if the ant is a native and the crops he farms is his target food then why not man?

Parakeets eat many things. Seeds, fruit and insects (when feeding chicks) so millet is NOT a target food if any such thing existed which you have plainly failed to convince anyone that it does.

It's not fantasy when you can spot it in even one species.

It's fantasy if you cannot show evidence. You cannot.

Plus I don't understand why everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the bible also concurs with these findings.

The bible tells God gave the Israelites a land full of milk and honey. That must mean 2 'intended foods' for humans. Straight from the bible but I guess you will dismiss this. Cherry picking as usual.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I think whats pathetic is how not a single person can come up with a target food for humans.

Still can't figure out why nobody will show you an example of something you admit you made up, and that we don't believe exists? While you continue to ponder that deep mystery, bring me a leprachuan.

Or how not a single person can come up with any species that has a natural relationship with man.

We did. You discounted it because parasites "may have been brought here inside us." Which wouldn't make the relationship any less natural. You then proceeded to ignore examples of organisms with complex parasitic life cycles spanning multiple host species.

I think its even more pathetic how we have all the answers to so many question that I have had that no one has been able to answer, from the bible, but you choose to disregard it as unusable. Thats pathetic.

I think its even more pathetic how we have all the answers to so many question that I have had that no one has been able to answer, from Lord of the Rings, but you choose to disregard it as unusable. Thats pathetic.

reply to post by colin42

The ant could also have a target food called an aphid.
So now there is three, parakeets millet, anteaters ants, and ants aphids.

How can that be? I already spent pages explaining to you the ant’s farm aphids. Grow fungus as a crop by gathering leaves. This makes the ant a farmer, just like humans.

Except for the fact that aphids are a large portion of the ants diet, and they are natural with little to few processes. Aphids are idealy a target food.

I haven't given much thought into how many there are, to do so would require me to learn details about many of their diets, as only a few would qualify to have any target food. Either way it doesn't matter because we have identified that one does have target food, so thats proof it exists. I'm sure there are others that have target food but I'm just as happy knowing about one of them.

reply to post by colin42

In fact ants 'milk' the honey dew Aphids exude so they are eating the milk of another animal which you say counts them out.

If they exude it, thats a hell of a big difference from milking a cow. Are you stretching things again?

So if the ant is a native and the crops he farms is his target food then why not man?

Well your assuming, again, you see they might all appear to be in the same element, which is actually a very good observation but we can only assume they are native to earth.

Parakeets eat many things. Seeds, fruit and insects (when feeding chicks) so millet is NOT a target food if any such thing existed which you have plainly failed to convince anyone that it does.

Well if you wanted to generalize it to just plain seed, you would still narrow it down to millet. The fact is their beaks are set up specifically to break open seeds, I would know I own two of them.

It's not fantasy when you can spot it in even one species.

It's fantasy if you cannot show evidence. You cannot.

I don't have to, google does a pretty good job of it.

Plus I don't understand why everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the bible also concurs with these findings.

The bible tells God gave the Israelites a land full of milk and honey. That must mean 2 'intended foods' for humans. Straight from the bible but I guess you will dismiss this. Cherry picking as usual.

Thats because your confusing what god gives us, as though he can only do right, as if he was our real creator. As I have explained several times the bible is clear on the fact that many food items, and species and herb were brought here from elsewhere, however that NONE of those are from home. In other words, the bible also agrees that humans would not have any target food here.

reply to post by mastermindkar

I think whats pathetic is how not a single person can come up with a target food for humans.


Still can't figure out why nobody will show you an example of something you admit you made up, and that we don't believe exists? While you continue to ponder that deep mystery, bring me a leprachuan

How many leprachauns would you have to see untill you believe they exist? Just one I presume. I have given you the anteater as the ideal example of someone that has target food, so there is your leprachaun.

Or how not a single person can come up with any species that has a natural relationship with man.


We did. You discounted it because parasites "may have been brought here inside us." Which wouldn't make the relationship any less natural. You then proceeded to ignore examples of organisms with complex parasitic life cycles spanning multiple host species.

And do you not agree that if your trying to find a species that has a relationship, that to prove you are both from the same place, that you have to rule out the ones that most likely hitched a ride with us?

I think its even more pathetic how we have all the answers to so many question that I have had that no one has been able to answer, from the bible, but you choose to disregard it as unusable. Thats pathetic.


I think its even more pathetic how we have all the answers to so many question that I have had that no one has been able to answer, from Lord of the Rings, but you choose to disregard it as unusable. Thats pathetic.

Clearly your just being retarded, I never claimed to be making suggestions about a fantasy subject. I have never once claimed that anything I have commented about is in the realm of fantasy. However you have made that assumption. This is either because you don't understand, or choose not to.

Thinking that the bible is fantasy is just your own lable to deny acceptance. The bible is catagorized as a supernatural book, not fantasy, there is a big difference. If you think your going to find reality in Lord of the rings, then its just another example of why you don't understand. There is no comparison between the two of them. Now if the lord of the rings was a supernatural book then you would have a valid arguement, but its not.

The problme is that there is really nothing we have to compare it to, so it can seem like a mystery if you have no background or research about the supernatural. There is plenty of real things you learn about right over the internet. I would expect the same courtesy from you that I have given to those in the evolution pitt. I have read much information about evolution, and I have watched several videos and read several definitions. While my understanding differes from what others on these threads is sharing, at least I can honestly say that I have an educated view of the subject, not to be confused with the fact that it doesn't agree with yours.

Your making claims and jokes about a subject that you have seriously invested zero time into and would rather look like an idiot making claims and bias about a subject that you choose to know nothing about. Why don't you invest some time, like I have before you to try to crack jokes about it. Granted your not going to be up to where I'm at in it at 30 years but you could at least try.

Here is a good place to start, maybe if I challenge that little pea brain of yours an I mean an honest challenge. If you think your actualy capeable of even understanding these things, which I don't think you are, try this one on for size.

Here is a real and very interesting story that is not for the layman. I'll even give you some help with this as its only fair since I have over 30 years in studying about these things. This has NOTHING to do with religion, now see if your smart enough to figure out what really caused this to happen.

www.ufodigest.com...

It would appear that not even the author of this article realizes exaclty why the name of Jesus stopped the abduction.

Here is a video...
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by mastermindkar


The ones that are the best, are the storys that have been confirmed by other people, like you and me, usually well known people in a community or people that are in a higher position to be known.

Probably the best story I can think of, is the one about Donald Decker, aka the rain man. No not the guy that count toothpicks, this is a different guy.

www.planet-flipside.com...

Now you can google his name and do more research as you may like, but I think the videos are the best, there is even a nice documenty on HULU about it, under the Paranormal Witness cue.

Donald had the ability to summon rain anywhere that he liked. Even rain indoors. Donald also had the ability to make rain gather from the floor into droplets, and shoot upward from the floor. Drops would also form in the middle of the room and then shoot out horizontaly. At first everyone didn't realize that it was actually Donald causing all this rain, they were just in shock from it being in their living room.

Now you might say this is obviously made up, but there is a little problem with that. Over a dozen people including police and jail warden were witnesses to these events.

So when you make jokes about Lord of the Rings and Leprechauns, I often wonder if your making fun of the bible as in you just know for a fact that it doesn't exist, or simply because you haven't personally experienced anything. Either way your wrong, there is lots of supernatural things out there, that science can't explain. Science even today can't make rain form on the ground and travel upward, or rain form in the middle of the room then shoot sideways. Science would laugh at the idea of it for sure, but it has really happened.

reply to post by itsthetooth


So when you look for information, do you always go straight to pseudo-scientific sources, or do you even bother to check out properly sourced scientific sources first before you ignore them?

Tooth, by your definition target food was "intended" for the species. You can't prove that anything ever was intended without showing who intended it, not even ants for an anteater. So even though ants and termites (2 different foods) make up most of an ant eater's diet, that's just the way it is. They weren't just set up and installed here specifically for ant eaters to eat. If that were the case, why create the ant and the ant eater in the first place? It's an ugly nasty species that digs its food out of the ground. Why not make him a more elegant species that can eat something without having to dig for it. I'd imagine eating ants out of the ground wouldn't be the most enjoyable life. Why make all nature always in competition for food if target food was real? So you still have 0 examples of target food, since your example does not even fit your own criteria.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So when you look for information, do you always go straight to pseudo-scientific sources, or do you even bother to check out properly sourced scientific sources first before you ignore them?

If your referring to evolution I go to the sources that people on the thread send me to.

What about you, do you just ignore anything that isn't explainable by science?