Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

I have done nothing but answer your akward questions colin.

You obviously do not understand the difference between replying and answering.

1. You have replied to my questions but you have never answered them.
2. The reason you find my questions awkward is because you have no answer to them.
3. The reason you have no answer to them is because your term 'target food' is nonsense so you reply with meaningless replies and not answers.

Thats funny becuase I recently said the same thing to you many times.

Actually I have done a pretty good job, and proven evolution wrong in the process, even though it wasn't the idea.

Again you dive head long into your fantasy world. You have not even made a case for the nonsense term 'target food' so how you can claim you have proven Evolution wrong is just more of your self deluded views.

The fact that we don't have any target food, and are unable to come up with any extinctions in our old based food menu is proof that we were planted here.

reply to post by colin42

A fine example of you replying but not giving an answer.

Telling me that something is already proven when your claim was:


Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.

(nice try at trying to ignore what you wrote originally)

Show don’t tell me it is proven. Don’t expect me to believe such an outrageous statement provide evidence

I always answer you colin, your just not smart enough to see the answers.

So where's your proof?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So let me get this straight, you do believe that a species ventures out to eat a food that he finds fitting for him. Now he has no science degree and wouldn't know how to tell the difference between what would be good for him and what might be better, in addition to him meeting his RDA on a broad scale. In other words you think that species just eat what ever they can and let the chips fall where they may.

Changing the subject again I see. Species eat whatever they can to survive. Nature is one giant competition. It always has been. If a certain species takes over an area with their food source, any other creature that relies on that source will have to migrate, find a new source, or die out. I already said this. Why beat the dead horse?

But let me tell you where the real nail in your coffin is on this matter. What you do see as being consistant is that if one anteater eats ants, they all eat ants. Your trying to convince me that all species have choice, but that isn't possible as they all eat the same things within their species.

The nail in the coffin is that if one anteater eats ants they all eat ants? You really have difficulty understanding what I'm saying. I've said none of what you are claiming I said.

Now you could be witty and claim that they have a complex social structure and language and sophisticated equipment to let the others no wihin their species what they are supposed to be eating, but I'm not going that direction. Your an idiot. There is no way in hell that you can claim there isn't some form of direction. You can call it instinct, you can call it target food, but what ever you call it, its obvious and its real.

Read my first statement again for the answer to this. It's not complicated at all. You just don't understand it.

Ok lets say I go with your 12 servings a day, not that I would have room but lets pretend its possible. Now you just have to worry about the rest of my diet needs. What about my iron intake, what about my protien intake. OOPS looks like we ran out of room a long time ago.

What do you eat everyday? Almost everyone in America eats 12 various foods throughout the day. What about your iron intake? You are just making absurd statements again. PROVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, DON'T ASSUME. Spinach is a very good source of iron. If you are claiming there is a deficiency, prove it, don't just guess. Demonstrate what's missing using exact numbers and figures.

I have heard the same, but I have also known that most I have seen that are vegan also struggle with being anemic, and often times take supplements for it. Soy I love but just like all of my friends, after a prolonged exposure, your body starts to reject it.

Proof of soybean rejection claim?

Cooking food is an obvious sign that it was not food that was intended for us to eat. Cooking is not natural.
www.rawfoodinfo.com...

Stop repeating useless points that have nothing to do with the argument and have already been addressed. You are the most dishonest person I've ever dealt with. Cooking is not necessary. It's a reflection of our intelligence. Just like supplements. Stop hindering the conversation. Make it go forward instead of just repeating yourself over and over again.

Well then you were wrong. Cows milk is NOT processed for profit. Pasturization is a process you should read up on which kills bacteria. Fortified is a process where we add vitamins back into the product. Homogenized is a process where the cream is maintained in the milk for consumption purposes. So you see, none of the processes are for profit.

Pasteurizing does kill bacteria, but most of the bacteria is only harmful if the milk is not drank soon after harvesting. Pasteurizing gives the milk longer shelf life. Without that, we'd have to get our milk straight from cows or local farms that were harvested within a few days. Pasteurizing lets it last for a few weeks rather than a few days. I prefer drinking raw milk, personally, although like I said, I don't really drink much milk at all.

If you were right, except that your not, we would see all species experimenting on eating different things. We would also see large variations in diet within the same species. The fact is we know what most species eat, and we are correct.

As an example, anteaters eat ants and termites mostly.

Are you blind? Most diets in the wild change on a MONTHLY basis. That's the nature of the competition and migration of creatures. They follow the food, they don't live in a magic utopia where they have an abundance of some special food that can give them all nutrients and is perfect for them. Recommended Daily Amount is not the same as required to survive. Most creatures don't have perfectly balanced diets

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You need to ask yourself, "Where did the cow get the calcium from?"

Answer: what it eats. Cacium is widely available in vegetable matter. A good source for many vegans are bitter greens. And if you are a meatatarian, you may just enjoy your offal as well (and scrape off little bits of bone along the way).

Not trying to rain on your parade....just helping to poke holes in your umbrella.

Your problem here is that your making an assumption that cows milk actually fits our needs.

First off its processed like crazy, redundant processing, which means its obviously not natural, and has reduced our quality of life as a result. Second it still doesn't meet ou daily requirements unless you have three servings in a day of it.

The overall picture that you might have missed here is that there are some rather large holes in our menu. Which is odd considering we have so many different things that we eat.

Evolution has no goal. It isn't a sentient thing. It is a byproduct of something we call "genetic drift". If you disagree with genetic drift, then you obviously have no concept of how genes work. Genetics are not a theory. Genetics are a science.

I dont question that there is honeslty change, but I do question that they haven't proven that its because of evolution.

Now, "evolution" (as it has been known) may be a load of baloney. But genetic drift is a fact, not a theory. There is no baloney there. And that, if nothing else, accounts for most of what you would call "evolution". The rest can be simple catastrophism. Or an underlying facet of reality (a la the 100 Monkeys principle).

Ya I agree and accept the fact that there is change, but just like my ADHD argument, its not proof its evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Thats tuff to answer because even according to the bible, it should be about seven thousand years ago, but to toss out that idea, the bible claims that there was other humans here allready in a city.

Of course it's tough to answer, because there is no logical answer. You are guessing, but 7000 years is obviously false because of the fossil record of humans.

Yes its obvious by the anchient alien theory that we have not been the only ones brought here.

How is that obvious and how is it relevant to my points?

Well I know you don't have the 30 years like I have studying the supernatural and paranormal, but I could guess that if you knew anything about aliens that you would at least know they are well known for abducting people. Thats what they do, that is the business they are in. It's obvious when I read the bible that this is what happened.

Ha! Way to totally avoid the questions. I didn't ask what alien activities have been reported. I specifically asked, "When were humans brought to earth?" and talked about why you are rejecting genetic manipulation and making things intentionally more difficult. You need to make a case for humans being brought to earth. You reference the bible. Please give me bible quotes that say humans were not from earth and were brought here, rather than made here. Sorry, but your knowledge is way too little to have studied anything for 30 years. Please provide the proof. You can't just make things up and hope they are correct. You have studied this for 30 years, but can't even explain the basics? C'mon man. It's put up or shut up time. You need evidence. Respond with science and proof of your points, or this will be my last post here. I can only bang my head against the wall so many times.

reply to post by Barcs

Changing the subject again I see. Species eat whatever they can to survive.

So you missed my point a third time here. If a species just eats whatever it wants, there is no guarantee its going to end up eating something that is in fact nutritious, so they can die an early life as a result, are you confusing this with surviving?

Nature is one giant competition. It always has been. If a certain species takes over an area with their food source, any other creature that relies on that source will have to migrate, find a new source, or die out. I already said this. Why beat the dead horse?

Everything that you have come up for so far is all leading to death. Now its funny that evolution is all about making life, like over a billion species, yet the results failing are causing death.

The nail in the coffin is that if one anteater eats ants they all eat ants? You really have difficulty understanding what I'm saying. I've said none of what you are claiming I said.

Well unless I missunderstood you, you just said it in this post.

What do you eat everyday? Almost everyone in America eats 12 various foods throughout the day. What about your iron intake? You are just making absurd statements again. PROVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, DON'T ASSUME. Spinach is a very good source of iron. If you are claiming there is a deficiency, prove it, don't just guess. Demonstrate what's missing using exact numbers and figures.

I don't need to, there have been millions of dollars of research spent on coming up with the ideal diet, and your trying to tell me that its so easy that anyone can do it without thinking.

I can't prove something that would take years of rulling out.

soy is among the nine most common food allergens for pediatric and adult food allergy patients

en.wikipedia.org...

Stop repeating useless points that have nothing to do with the argument and have already been addressed. You are the most dishonest person I've ever dealt with. Cooking is not necessary. It's a reflection of our intelligence. Just like supplements. Stop hindering the conversation. Make it go forward instead of just repeating yourself over and over again.

I see so its our stupidity that created supplements and cooking?

Pasteurizing does kill bacteria, but most of the bacteria is only harmful if the milk is not drank soon after harvesting.

Oh I see so we are all just supposed to own our own cow for fresh milk, hey problem solved.

Are you blind? Most diets in the wild change on a MONTHLY basis. That's the nature of the competition and migration of creatures. They follow the food, they don't live in a magic utopia where they have an abundance of some special food that can give them all nutrients and is perfect for them. Recommended Daily Amount is not the same as required to survive. Most creatures don't have perfectly balanced diets

I think its more that people just think they have come up with a better diet is all.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So you missed my point a third time here. If a species just eats whatever it wants, there is no guarantee its going to end up eating something that is in fact nutritious, so they can die an early life as a result, are you confusing this with surviving?

Yeah I'm totally confusing eating whatever food they can find with survival. I already explained that the same nutrients are found in many foods, but yeah, just keep ignoring that. Keep pretending that creatures in nature have perfect diets, rather than eat whatever they can to survive.

Everything that you have come up for so far is all leading to death. Now its funny that evolution is all about making life, like over a billion species, yet the results failing are causing death.

????? Name a single creature ever that doesn't die. Of course being unable to find food leads to death. That's my entire point. If these creatures actually had a "target food" they wouldn't have to worry about that.

I don't need to, there have been millions of dollars of research spent on coming up with the ideal diet, and your trying to tell me that its so easy that anyone can do it without thinking.

Where did I say that??? Did you miss the part where I said that thinking is our greatest survival trait? Apparently you did or ignored it as usual.

soy is among the nine most common food allergens for pediatric and adult food allergy patients

en.wikipedia.org...

Where does that article say that after eating a lot of soy our bodies reject it? Remember. Intelligence is the key to our survival. Most people can eat soy, but yes some are allergic and will have to get protein and calcium from other sources.

I see so its our stupidity that created supplements and cooking?

You either can't read, can't comprehend or are intentionally trolling. Our INTELLIGENCE helped discover supplements and cooking. How could you possibly mistake what I said for the exact opposite.

Oh I see so we are all just supposed to own our own cow for fresh milk, hey problem solved.

This conversation is over. You have trouble making a basic point. This has nothing to do with what I said. NOTHING. Try actually reading instead of skimming through and responding within 5 minutes to something hastily and making yourself look bad. Intellectual dishonesty is my biggest pet peeve and you have been doing it for a long time. It's one thing to simply not know something or make a mistake, but you swear up and down that what you are saying proves something, when in reality it doesn't. It is just you making a terrible statement. Like I said, you didn't provide any facts to back your points up. They are all laughable and have nothing to do with what I said.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your problem here is that your making an assumption that cows milk actually fits our needs.

First off its processed like crazy, redundant processing, which means its obviously not natural, and has reduced our quality of life as a result. Second it still doesn't meet ou daily requirements unless you have three servings in a day of it.

The overall picture that you might have missed here is that there are some rather large holes in our menu. Which is odd considering we have so many different things that we eat.

You seem to be missing my point: you don't need milk to get calcium. The cow gets ITS calcium from somewhere....why not just go where it gets its calcium from? Eat your veggies, basically.

I don't drink milk. It is gross to me. I drink Almond mlik, jazzed up with stuff like heavy cream (which I don't mind taking it....it is a fat and my primary source of energy throughout the day due tot he large amount i put in my coffee).

I dont question that there is honeslty change, but I do question that they haven't proven that its because of evolution.

Once again, you are missing the point. Nothing happens "because of evolution". Evolution is a term we use to describe genetic drift, as well as rapid genetic changes (which would be a cataclysmic response, like dinosaur extinction).

If genetic drift happens, then it happens. And when it does, you call it evolution. If you are arguing against evolution, you are arguing against genetic drift. Evolution is the term used to describe genetic drift and rapid genetic change. I am not sure why you aren't understanding this.

Ya I agree and accept the fact that there is change, but just like my ADHD argument, its not proof its evolution.

Then what do you call "evolution"? I would suspect that you are either not understanding the term, or you are unaware that if you were to analyze what you are referring to, you would actually be supporting evolution.

If you support genetic drift, you support evolution.

Now, the real problem comes once you accept the simple logic stated in the above sentence. What that logic means to various things like religion and race relations can cause some very uncomfortable quandries. I have worked through most of these already, and can assure you that "evolution" is nothing more than genetic drift, and actually is a display of genius that is so far beyond what we have typically ascribed to a Creator that is causes you to stand back in awe of such amazing insightfulness and elegant relational planning.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You seem to be missing my point: you don't need milk to get calcium.

He's not missing your point, he's ignoring it...just like everything else that proves his mini-religion is pure fantasyland garbage

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You seem to be missing my point: you don't need milk to get calcium.

He's not missing your point, he's ignoring it...just like everything else that proves his mini-religion is pure fantasyland garbage

As a Texan, I can attest that a good way to get calcium is to eat ribs.

Any time you put tooth or implement to bone, you remove little portions of it and ingest it. I would suspect that fat and nutrient rich marrow made offal a common staple of the hunter of days past. I would also suspect that other small bone items (like in fish) provided plenty of calcium. The OP seems to restrict what he is viewing as a dietary calcium source, especially for ancient man.

It seems simple: when we domesticated and stopped hunting, we stopped eating as much offal and instead drank more milk and ate more cheese. Bone cuts of meat were reserved for the dogs to gnaw on, and other scraps were given to pigs. It just doesn't seem so hard to me.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats funny becuase I recently said the same thing to you many times.

Nothing funny about your continuous refusal to answer the questions asked of you or your very poor spelling.

One quick look back shows your statement above to be just one of the many lies you tell and again demonstrates your refusal to answer.

The fact that we don't have any target food, and are unable to come up with any extinctions in our old based food menu is proof that we were planted here.

More garbage. You have not made a case for the existence of target food. Everyone has in fact destroyed your argument on every point.

All the questions asked of you have not been answered as all you seem able to do is offer one of your feeble and meaningless replies supported by nothing more than your uneducated opinion.

Proof indeed that your term and you have no value at all

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

A fine example of you replying but not giving an answer.

Telling me that something is already proven when your claim was:


Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.

(nice try at trying to ignore what you wrote originally)

Show don’t tell me it is proven. Don’t expect me to believe such an outrageous statement provide evidence

I always answer you colin, your just not smart enough to see the answers.

Again you demonstrate your inability to answer any questions. Try again. You wrote:

Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.

I replied: I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts. You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened. Your reply which again was not an answer

It's allready proven, there is no way that a species as a whole can just magically end up eating the same things, and you try to tell me that they just eat whatever

....... I see no proof there, just another meaningless reply so I stated. ‘So I again asked you to Show me proof don’t tell me it is proven. Don’t expect me to believe such an outrageous statement. Provide evidence.

Now your reply and note not an answer to my question again

I always answer you colin, your just not smart enough to see the answers.

A person who demonstrates such a low level of intelligence should not attempt to question how smart others are.

So do I take it you again refuse to provide proof of your pathetic claim?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
As a Texan, I can attest that a good way to get calcium is to eat ribs.

Any time you put tooth or implement to bone, you remove little portions of it and ingest it. I would suspect that fat and nutrient rich marrow made offal a common staple of the hunter of days past. I would also suspect that other small bone items (like in fish) provided plenty of calcium. The OP seems to restrict what he is viewing as a dietary calcium source, especially for ancient man.

It seems simple: when we domesticated and stopped hunting, we stopped eating as much offal and instead drank more milk and ate more cheese. Bone cuts of meat were reserved for the dogs to gnaw on, and other scraps were given to pigs. It just doesn't seem so hard to me.

Just to prepare you, here will be the response:

Humans were never meant to eat ribs! You can't even get them from a cow without chopping it up! Processing and cooking them is not natural. If humans were meant to eat ribs, there would handles on the outside of the animal so you could slide them out easily, and they'd be already cooked. Ribs are meant to protect an animal's heart, not to be eaten. That's DISGUSTING!

Just giving you a dose of Tooth logic Excellent post, though. I didn't even think about that. I eat bone marrow more often than I realize.

reply to post by Barcs

Yeah I'm totally confusing eating whatever food they can find with survival. I already explained that the same nutrients are found in many foods, but yeah, just keep ignoring that.

Of course they are, but the amounts are different. So again, you have to take a reduction in your quality of life and probably not only go out of your way more to obtain this supplement, but you have to also eat more of it to hit your RDA.

Either way you look at it, your suffering.

Keep pretending that creatures in nature have perfect diets, rather than eat whatever they can to survive.

Non humans don't have the ability to pick and choose based on knowledge of what the food offers. Your never going to convince me that if an ant loses a protien source, that he would be smart enough to know where to pick up another one. Either way you look at this, the reduction of his quality of life is in motion.

Name a single creature ever that doesn't die. Of course being unable to find food leads to death. That's my entire point. If these creatures actually had a "target food" they wouldn't have to worry about that.

More to my point that a reduction in the quality of life, leads to an earlier death.

I don't need to, there have been millions of dollars of research spent on coming up with the ideal diet, and your trying to tell me that its so easy that anyone can do it without thinking.

Where did I say that??? Did you miss the part where I said that thinking is our greatest survival trait? Apparently you did or ignored it as usual.

You posted this list as though it was a fix all for anyone that wants to meet their RDA of calcium.

Going by your list it's easy. 1000mg of calcium. That's 500 twice a day.

Almonds - 92
Brocolli - 36
Spinach - 138
Beans - 50
Kale - 45
Rhubarb - 174
_____________

Total: 450

Twice a day = 900.

BTW thats 12 servings your adding up, in case you didn't realize this might even be a full days serving.

www.soyfoods.com... Your still going to have to gorge yourself on soy to hit your RDA. Honestly when something isn't hitting your RDA needs in one to two servings, your taking a loss in the quality of life.

Where does that article say that after eating a lot of soy our bodies reject it? Remember. Intelligence is the key to our survival. Most people can eat soy, but yes some are allergic and will have to get protein and calcium from other sources.

Oh they don't, I just have a couple of friends that aquired allergys as a result later on.

You either can't read, can't comprehend or are intentionally trolling. Our INTELLIGENCE helped discover supplements and cooking. How could you possibly mistake what I said for the exact opposite.

But why would we need supplements when our perfect diet is here.

This conversation is over. You have trouble making a basic point. This has nothing to do with what I said. NOTHING. Try actually reading instead of skimming through and responding within 5 minutes to something hastily and making yourself look bad. Intellectual dishonesty is my biggest pet peeve and you have been doing it for a long time. It's one thing to simply not know something or make a mistake, but you swear up and down that what you are saying proves something, when in reality it doesn't. It is just you making a terrible statement. Like I said, you didn't provide any facts to back your points up. They are all laughable and have nothing to do with what I said.

Thats because you think that these conversations can be simply answered with very little effort, when in fact they are very complex. It's not that I'm changing the subject, its that this is where the topic leads us with your quick answer to things.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You seem to be missing my point: you don't need milk to get calcium. The cow gets ITS calcium from somewhere....why not just go where it gets its calcium from? Eat your veggies, basically.

Because we don't have the ability to eat grass and convert it into milk like the cow can, we need the cow to do this.

I don't drink milk. It is gross to me. I drink Almond mlik, jazzed up with stuff like heavy cream (which I don't mind taking it....it is a fat and my primary source of energy throughout the day due tot he large amount i put in my coffee).

Its a good idea to supplement your dairy any way you can. Everyone knows after reading the last couple of pages that we don't have a good source for calcium on this planet. At least not a natural one. The best though is processed cheese, its off the hook and packs a punch, but its processed.

Once again, you are missing the point. Nothing happens "because of evolution". Evolution is a term we use to describe genetic drift, as well as rapid genetic changes (which would be a cataclysmic response, like dinosaur extinction).

If genetic drift happens, then it happens. And when it does, you call it evolution. If you are arguing against evolution, you are arguing against genetic drift. Evolution is the term used to describe genetic drift and rapid genetic change. I am not sure why you aren't understanding this.

No I understand it, I just always refer to evolution as another enetity because its responsible for creating over a billion species but is said to have no intention and no direction. After a billion and one, I think I would have gotten a clue that there is obviously some sort of intelligence behind it and obviously some sort of intent.

Then what do you call "evolution"? I would suspect that you are either not understanding the term, or you are unaware that if you were to analyze what you are referring to, you would actually be supporting evolution.

If you support genetic drift, you support evolution.

Now, the real problem comes once you accept the simple logic stated in the above sentence. What that logic means to various things like religion and race relations can cause some very uncomfortable quandries. I have worked through most of these already, and can assure you that "evolution" is nothing more than genetic drift, and actually is a display of genius that is so far beyond what we have typically ascribed to a Creator that is causes you to stand back in awe of such amazing insightfulness and elegant relational planning.

On a given basis, the mechanisim that causes the changes has never been identified. I had even pondered the idea that perhaps this change is all accounted for in sickness and disease. As was the case with a link I posted in an earlier thread where scientists are claiming that ADHD has the ability to change our genes. This was newley found, which means that prior to that people were seeing this change and calling it evolution, when its not. Change happens either way, I can't argue that, its the lack of evidence that proves those changes are a result of evolution. What I'm saying is I believe those changes are occuring because of actuall reasons and not just random chance changes.

reply to post by MrXYZ

He's not missing your point, he's ignoring it...just like everything else that proves his mini-religion is pure fantasyland garbage

Mrxyz, you have never presented anything that disproves the bible. I know this for a fact because supernatural elements are not testable by our science.

You seriously need an education.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

As a Texan, I can attest that a good way to get calcium is to eat ribs.

Any time you put tooth or implement to bone, you remove little portions of it and ingest it. I would suspect that fat and nutrient rich marrow made offal a common staple of the hunter of days past. I would also suspect that other small bone items (like in fish) provided plenty of calcium. The OP seems to restrict what he is viewing as a dietary calcium source, especially for ancient man.

It seems simple: when we domesticated and stopped hunting, we stopped eating as much offal and instead drank more milk and ate more cheese. Bone cuts of meat were reserved for the dogs to gnaw on, and other scraps were given to pigs. It just doesn't seem so hard to me

I partially grew up in TX as well, howdy pardnor.

Anyhow I'm sure they considered ribs in this list I posted, but its not in there. There is however some truth in what your saying, The whole reason sardines are at the top of the list is because everyone just eats the bones with them.

reply to post by colin42

Thats funny becuase I recently said the same thing to you many times.

Nothing funny about your continuous refusal to answer the questions asked of you or your very poor spelling.

One quick look back shows your statement above to be just one of the many lies you tell and again demonstrates your refusal to answer.

We have allready established that your not the best at asking questions. So I suggest you retry and make sure to put a question mark on the end.

The fact that we don't have any target food, and are unable to come up with any extinctions in our old based food menu is proof that we were planted here.

More garbage. You have not made a case for the existence of target food. Everyone has in fact destroyed your argument on every point.

There is no way, we could have been designed whether you follow evolution or creation, either way we are designed. And not be there some sort of way for us to be healthy. On the other hand if all your seeing is the 99% extinction rate happening right now, I guess I can understand why you disagree with me. There are many things here that have target food, I have given you a few of them, you would just have to research some if you want more. The fact that I was able to present one, and one alone is proof that target food can exist.

All the questions asked of you have not been answered as all you seem able to do is offer one of your feeble and meaningless replies supported by nothing more than your uneducated opinion.

Proof indeed that your term and you have no value at all

I'm still going to take the side that if you were honestly against the idea of target food, you would just produce some ideas for target food for humans to shut me up. However you failed to do so. It's more proof that we aren't from here. When someone as incredulous as yourself is unable to produce even the slightest of an argument, well that pretty much seals it. I would have figured that you would have at least tried.

reply to post by colin42

Again you demonstrate your inability to answer any questions. Try again. You wrote:


Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.

I replied: I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts. You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened. Your reply which again was not an answer

The proof that we recieved these good is all in the bible.

I see no proof there, just another meaningless reply so I stated. ‘So I again asked you to Show me proof don’t tell me it is proven. Don’t expect me to believe such an outrageous statement. Provide evidence.

Now your reply and note not an answer to my question again

Its YOU that has the meaningless reply. Your not providing proof on how a species knows as a whole what to magically eat. Your also not providing proof that when do run our of target food, how they all magically know what to go after next. They don't all have cell phones so how is it that they all end up eating the same things?

I always answer you colin, your just not smart enough to see the answers.

A person who demonstrates such a low level of intelligence should not attempt to question how smart others are.

So do I take it you again refuse to provide proof of your pathetic claim?

Colin put up or shut up, your being a real horses ass. All you do is demand answers to question, and then when I answer them, your not happy with the answers. Your not happy because YOUR WRONG, and you can't accept the truth.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Because we don't have the ability to eat grass and convert it into milk like the cow can, we need the cow to do this.

Here is a link to a Harvard study that says milk isn't the best source of calcium:

www.hsph.harvard.edu...

And a link to 10 veggies that are high in calcium:

www.fitday.com...

No, we don't eat grass. We eat celery, almonds, soybeans, etc, etc.

Its a good idea to supplement your dairy any way you can. Everyone knows after reading the last couple of pages that we don't have a good source for calcium on this planet. At least not a natural one. The best though is processed cheese, its off the hook and packs a punch, but its processed.

Let me help you dispel this belief:

milk.procon.org...

On this list you can see that sardines and whole grain cereals surpass calcium. Cereal does it by more than 500% by serving.

And things like greens still rank high.

No I understand it, I just always refer to evolution as another enetity because its responsible for creating over a billion species but is said to have no intention and no direction. After a billion and one, I think I would have gotten a clue that there is obviously some sort of intelligence behind it and obviously some sort of intent.

You do not understand nature.

There doesn't have to be intelligent thought for the fact that nature is fractal. We don't know what drives it...only that it is an obvious truth. DNA is a facet of this fractal framework that the universe follows. Believe it or not, it will still remain truth.

On a given basis, the mechanisim that causes the changes has never been identified. I had even pondered the idea that perhaps this change is all accounted for in sickness and disease. As was the case with a link I posted in an earlier thread where scientists are claiming that ADHD has the ability to change our genes. This was newley found, which means that prior to that people were seeing this change and calling it evolution, when its not. Change happens either way, I can't argue that, its the lack of evidence that proves those changes are a result of evolution. What I'm saying is I believe those changes are occuring because of actuall reasons and not just random chance changes.

The mechanism HAS been identified. The mechanism is clear. Do you know what tRNA is? Ever heard of mitosis? We have seen mitosis under a microscope. We have physically observed it happen.

Do you ignore reality for fun, or what?