It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 31
6
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You have seriously tried every dirty rotten trick in the book to out debate me,



1. Questions about your claims.
2. Asking for evidence to back up those claims
3. No accepting undefined, made up nonsense terms
4. Not accepting your misuse of words like redundant
5. Not accepting your opinions and assumptions in place of evidence
6. Pointing out your dishonesty
7. Refuting what you claim evolution is or what it explains

If the above is what you call dirty tricks. Then yes. Guilty as charged.
No the above is what I call your way of avoiding the already existant list that I gave to you.




The standard of most of your posts from spelling to punctuation and many times poorly constructed answers with no signs of proof reading at all. The fact you don’t understand many of the words you misuse. Your statement above is just an empty hissy fit. Get over it.
You were the one trying to convince everyone on your thread that puncuation is not necessary and that should be able to identify a question without the question mark.




Which confirms my last statement that you do not have the education to understand what a relationship is and is not. You were clearly beaten on this point and have been beaten many times since. Get over it.
If the homes werent built at all, would the birds still come? NO the wouldn't, so its proof that the relationship is with the house not the human, Your wrong as usual.




I supplied you with pages of evidence that shows we have had a long standing relationship that dates back into ancient history with the wolf and that relationship carry's on to this day via the dog, a sub species of the Gray Wolf.
No what you supplied was pages of evidence that there is speculation that we once had a long standing relationship that dates back into ancient history. You have no historical documents that prove we ever inhabited this planet prior to biblical times, and you have no historical documents that prove we had any type of reltionship with wolves. Rememeber there is a very good reason why its illegal to own them.




I never mentioned once that wolves are friends again showing you have no idea what relationship means or what constitutes one. You were slaughtered on this point regarding wolves. Take a breath and get over it.
Just because you keep one in your backyard, and you feed him, is not proof of any natural type of relationship.




You again showcase you have no idea what a relationship is. Our crops provide a large food source for the bee in one place. The bee's actions pollinate our crops thus increasing the yield. That is a relationship. End of. BTW you should proof read what you write.
Just because we tricked mother natural by planting crops, doesn't mean the bees know the crops belong to us. I want to know exactly how the bees know the crops belong to us. Just like I would like to know how the tree sparrow knows that the homes belong to us as well. You claiming a lot of intelligence here and I would like to know where its coming from.

Bees and tree sparrows are not sentient beings, so I want to know where all this is coming from.




Your inability to even show it exists on this thread proves me right again then. I am doing well
Target food has not only been proven, but intelligence thats needed to explain for the gap in evolution not explaining how food gets programmed into a species is also proven.




and after I offered countelss pages of definition repeated over and over, you refused to accept the definition I was giving as though you knew it was the only way you might look good in this part of the debate.

You provided no such thing. You still have not. My points showing a recap with all the contradictions that you cannot answer is proof of that. Of course you could prove me wrong and supply that definition now
Why would I, youll just ignore it again.




I offered you a chance to debate your use of the bible as 'a clear historical document' You declined that offer. I showed you cherry picked what you said proved it and again you refused to explain. You lost. Suck it in and wipe your eye's
After quoting many parts of the bible the only thing you had to say is that the bible is not proof.

So I then took it one step further and proved that the bible was a historical document, and you argued that, even though it was wikis word.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


There is no fantasy in the food we eat, or rather that animals eat. There is this gap in evolution that fails to explain how it is that a species automatically knows what its suppose to eat. If science has done their research they have clearly identified the nutrients of hundreds of food subjects, and have matched them with why a species eats them.

There is no such situation where a species ends up eating the wrong food and dies from malnutrition from it. Humans have to test food, then test ourselves to figure out what we need to eat. Animals don't have a labratory so this is where the gap is in evolution. The only way that a species could know when a food is good for them, is if that information was given to them via some type of intelligence.

When a human needs more fiber in their diet, we eat more fiber, but we would first have reason that would tell us that we need more fiber. The other problem is that we are taught what gives us fiber, it doesn't come to us naturally. So there are actually a few gaps here present here that lack explanation and consideration.

Animals aren't going to be smart enough to know when they are lacking something in their diet, at the same time, even if they could know, how would they also know what it is they are suppose to eat to maintain a healthy diet. The answers are intelligent no matter how you slice this. There is simply no way that species would be smart enough to figure all of this out without the use of a labratory.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


[exFeedingAnteaters are specialized to feed on ants and termites, each anteater species having its own insect preferences: small species are specialized on arboreal insects living on small branches, while large species can penetrate the hard covering of the nests of terrestrial insects. To avoid the jaws, sting, and other defences of the invertebrates, anteaters have adopted the feeding strategy to lick up as many ants and termites as quickly as possible — an anteater normally spends about a minute at a nest before moving on to another — and a giant anteater has to visit up to 200 nests to consume the thousands of insects it needs to satisfy its caloric requirements. [6]

The anteater's tongue is covered with thousands of tiny hooks called filiform papillae which are used to hold the insects together with large amounts of saliva. Swallowing and the movement of the tongue are aided by side-to-side movements of the jaws. The anteater's stomach, similarly to a bird's gizzard, has hardened folds and uses strong contractions to grind the insects; a digestive process assisted by small amounts of ingested sand and dirt. [6] The tongue is attached to the sternum and moves very quickly, flicking 150 times per minute.

]

Anteater



Do you never read what you post? Article clearly states anteaters eat insects. I have emboldened the specific sentence to help you out.

Interestingly, it also states that Mr Anteater clearly isn't as well adapted to eating the insects as a designer should have made it, it does after all have to run away after a few minutes to avoid the the stings and bites of its prey...so...

Long sticky tongue for licking up ants....
Sharp claws for digging out ants.....
Super sharp hearing and sense of smell for locating ants.....

Delicate skin....run away....run away

reading further, seems our mystical designer failed to provide strong enough digestive juices so poor old Mr Anteater also has to eat sand and grit in order to grind up the insects.

Can grit be a target food?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No the above is what I call your way of avoiding the already existant list that I gave to you.
Then it should no problem to produce it now. Do that.


You were the one trying to convince everyone on your thread that puncuation is not necessary and that should be able to identify a question without the question mark.
Blar blar. Show your evidence for your titles claim. You spelt punctuation wrong BTW, classic



If the homes werent built at all, would the birds still come? NO the wouldn't, so its proof that the relationship is with the house not the human, Your wrong as usual.
(Weren’t not werent). As you have been told many times. They would not come because they would be extinct. They need us to provide their nesting sites. End of. Obviously way above your head.


No what you supplied was pages of evidence that there is speculation .......blar ........ blar
You lost this point and just because you come out with a load of old flannel does not make you right. Now where is your proof for your titles claim?


Just because you keep one in your backyard, and you feed him, is not proof of any natural type of relationship.
My dog, a sub species of the Gray Wolf lives in my home as do many dogs. You cannot understand that fact is your problem but proves my point wonderfully.


Just because we tricked mother natural by planting crops .... blar blar
That is why people make money for hiring out their beehives. That is why we are worried about the bees dying off. You have no clue so you should not keep showcasing your ignorance unless of course you are proud it.


Target food has not only been proven, blar blar ..... lie ...... fantasy ... lie... boring
Enough with your fantasy world claims. Show your evidence


Why would I, youll just ignore it again.
(You’ll not youll) I cannot ignore what you have not supplied here or on the other thread. Your title claims you can prove evolution wrong using target food. You cannot even prove target food exists. In fact you have done the opposite.


After quoting many parts of the bible the only thing you had to say is that the bible is not proof.
Here come your lies. You quoted from a source you did not supply. We argued for a few pages and you played the broken link trick. Eventually you provided it and it became obvious you cherry picked from it.

I challenged you on that link and you refused to enter into the debate. you therefore lost the right to refer to the bible as a 'clear historical document'. That is the price you pay for your dishonest approach to posters on this site.

You showed then and continue to show now, how dishonest you are.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There is no fantasy in the food we eat, or ..... blar ..... bar ....... blar
I have no interest in your opinion. I am sick and tired of reading your opinion. Where is the evidence for your claims?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Do you never read what you post? Article clearly states anteaters eat insects. I have emboldened the specific sentence to help you out.
Yes kiddos, its learning day here on the discovery channel. In case you didn't know this already, ants and termites are insects, and in fact, when the article mentions insects, it is specifically referring to ants and termites.




Interestingly, it also states that Mr Anteater clearly isn't as well adapted to eating the insects as a designer should have made it, it does after all have to run away after a few minutes to avoid the the stings and bites of its prey...so...
Which could easily be explained from the ants cross breeding and he's targeting harsher bred species.

Remember, his ears, are made for hearing ants, his claws made for tearing up their homes, his snout made for sniffing them out and his tounge made for grabbing over 100 at a time. There is no way your ever going to convince me, that he is not fit well for the job.




Long sticky tongue for licking up ants....
Sharp claws for digging out ants.....
Super sharp hearing and sense of smell for locating ants.....

Delicate skin....run away....run away

reading further, seems our mystical designer failed to provide strong enough digestive juices so poor old Mr Anteater also has to eat sand and grit in order to grind up the insects.

Can grit be a target food?
Depends on if the ants are the same species he was designed to target.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No the above is what I call your way of avoiding the already existant list that I gave to you.

Then it should no problem to produce it now. Do that.
I know what your game is Colin, you just get this selective amnesia, LOL. You just think its so funny to keep having me repost things because you claim to have never gotten them. Well ding dong, your request is in the OP, so you can walk yourself back to that.




You were the one trying to convince everyone on your thread that puncuation is not necessary and that should be able to identify a question without the question mark.

Blar blar. Show your evidence for your titles claim. You spelt punctuation wrong BTW, classic
Read the OP.




If the homes werent built at all, would the birds still come? NO the wouldn't, so its proof that the relationship is with the house not the human, Your wrong as usual.

(Weren’t not werent). As you have been told many times. They would not come because they would be extinct. They need us to provide their nesting sites. End of. Obviously way above your head.
The only reason they could become extinct is if something happened to their natural habitat, and living in homes made by humans is not a natural habitat.




No what you supplied was pages of evidence that there is speculation .......blar ........ blar

You lost this point and just because you come out with a load of old flannel does not make you right. Now where is your proof for your titles claim?
Read the OP.




Just because you keep one in your backyard, and you feed him, is not proof of any natural type of relationship.

My dog, a sub species of the Gray Wolf lives in my home as do many dogs. You cannot understand that fact is your problem but proves my point wonderfully.
Did you want a brownie button or a chest to pin it on?




Just because we tricked mother natural by planting crops .... blar blar

That is why people make money for hiring out their beehives. That is why we are worried about the bees dying off. You have no clue so you should not keep showcasing your ignorance unless of course you are proud it.
When humans cause or make things happen, its not considered to be natural...


nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

natural




Target food has not only been proven, blar blar ..... lie ...... fantasy ... lie... boring

Enough with your fantasy world claims. Show your evidence
Youll have to re read the OP and the thread as its all here.




Why would I, youll just ignore it again.

(You’ll not youll) I cannot ignore what you have not supplied here or on the other thread. Your title claims you can prove evolution wrong using target food. You cannot even prove target food exists. In fact you have done the opposite.
Target food was easily proven with the list of food menus that I posted about various species. It's apparen't that species are targeting specific foods. What does evolution call this ability? The crystal ball diet LOL
.




Here come your lies. You quoted from a source you did not supply. We argued for a few pages and you played the broken link trick. Eventually you provided it and it became obvious you cherry picked from it.

I challenged you on that link and you refused to enter into the debate. you therefore lost the right to refer to the bible as a 'clear historical document'. That is the price you pay for your dishonest approach to posters on this site.

You showed then and continue to show now, how dishonest you are.


It doesn't matter if it was cherry picked, the claim was about the entire bible.

You blew it man, you can't even step up to admitting when your wrong, and all you have done is make yourself look worse. From all the cheesy tactics like telling me I never posted links when I did, or that I cherry picked when it still applies, is worthless mutter.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There is no fantasy in the food we eat, or ..... blar ..... bar ....... blar

I have no interest in your opinion. I am sick and tired of reading your opinion. Where is the evidence for your claims?
Youll have to re read the OP and the entire thread as its all covered.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No the above is what I call your way of avoiding the already existant list that I gave to you.

Then it should no problem to produce it now. Do that.

I know what your game is Colin, you just get this selective amnesia, LOL. You just think its so funny to keep having me repost things because you claim to have never gotten them. Well ding dong, your request is in the OP, so you can walk yourself back to that.
So your answer is as it always is. Refusal to supply a definition. FYI I re read the OP and guess what. Loads of your drivel but no definition of target food.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Quote where you defined target food. Anywhere from the two threads will do.


If you cant do that write the definition. You say you have supplied it many times so it should be easy if that were true. WE BOTH KNOW IT IS NOT.


Blar blar. Show your evidence for your titles claim. You spelt punctuation wrong BTW, classic

Read the OP.
I did it was crap. Where was the definition?


The only reason they could become extinct is if something happened to their natural habitat, and living in homes made by humans is not a natural habitat.
Sorry but you are wrong. Here is a hint. They are called 'THE HOUSE SPARROW'.



No what you supplied was pages of evidence that there is speculation .......blar ........ blar

You lost this point and just because you come out with a load of old flannel does not make you right. Now where is your proof for your titles claim?

Read the OP.
I did, It was crap. No evidence at all.


Just because you keep one in your backyard, and you feed him, is not proof of any natural type of relationship.

My dog, a sub species of the Gray Wolf lives in my home as do many dogs. You cannot understand that fact is your problem but proves my point wonderfully.

Did you want a brownie button or a chest to pin it on?
Nah just got your pitiful reply which is the same as you admitting I am right and you are wrong ..... AGAIN



When humans cause or make things happen, its not considered to be natural...
So you say but then everything you say is complete nonsense. The above is no different.


Youll have to re read the OP and the thread as its all here.
Not even close


Target food was easily proven ......... Utter trash
Yep. You cant supply the evidence


It doesn't matter if it was cherry picked, the claim was about the entire bible.
Dishonesty is natural to you that proves not everything man does is not natural
Cherry Picking (fallacy)

In science

Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
Actually that text defines what a tooth is
.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No the above is what I call your way of avoiding the already existant list that I gave to you.

Then it should no problem to produce it now. Do that.

I know what your game is Colin, you just get this selective amnesia, LOL. You just think its so funny to keep having me repost things because you claim to have never gotten them. Well ding dong, your request is in the OP, so you can walk yourself back to that.

So your answer is as it always is. Refusal to supply a definition. FYI I re read the OP and guess what. Loads of your drivel but no definition of target food.
The terms for target food are listed in the OP and plenty of other people were able to read it and understand it with no problem.




Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Quote where you defined target food. Anywhere from the two threads will do.

If you cant do that write the definition. You say you have supplied it many times so it should be easy if that were true. WE BOTH KNOW IT IS NOT.
It's as easy as you going back to read it.




The only reason they could become extinct is if something happened to their natural habitat, and living in homes made by humans is not a natural habitat.

Sorry but you are wrong. Here is a hint. They are called 'THE HOUSE SPARROW'
But they started out as what was once referred to as the tree sparrow, are you saying they forgot how to survive?




When humans cause or make things happen, its not considered to be natural...

So you say but then everything you say is complete nonsense. The above is no different.
Who ever said I said it, I'm quoting the definition of the term natural.




Dishonesty is natural to you that proves not everything man does is not natural Cherry Picking
It's not cherry picking when 6 other definers agree.




Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence,
There is no competing evidence for Target food.




so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it,
There are no findings that do not support Target food, and if you feel otherwise, I challenge you to supply them.




is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
You mean sort of like how someone on this thread came up with the idea that vestigial organs are actually a part of evolution when there is no proof to that. Or how you actually claimed that air on earth proves we are from earth. Totally defines a dirty colin.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Were Wasps intended to feed their young by hunting protein for them which they themselves cannot consume? See with many species of wasp, adults cannot digest protein, however, when the larva get hungry, the wasp must hunt and kill another insect, then mash it up in its mouth and feed it to the larva. Is that behavior natural? Shouldn't the larva have an accessible target food? I guess Wasps were brought here in the same spaceship that had humans, sharks, dolphins and 90% of every other species to ever walk the earth it in. Must have been fun gathering up all those creatures and sustaining them in a spaceship.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Were Wasps intended to feed their young by hunting protein for them which they themselves cannot consume? See with many species of wasp, adults cannot digest protein, however, when the larva get hungry, the wasp must hunt and kill another insect, then mash it up in its mouth and feed it to the larva. Is that behavior natural? Shouldn't the larva have an accessible target food? I guess Wasps were brought here in the same spaceship that had humans, sharks, dolphins and 90% of every other species to ever walk the earth it in. Must have been fun gathering up all those creatures and sustaining them in a spaceship.
Just because they have an odd step in feeding young is not proof of anything. Thats like saying human babies should have an accessible target food, but the problem here is that first of all his could have gone extinct. The other problem is humans could have an accesible target food as babies, we just don't know. On the other hand we have always assumed it the responsiblity of the mother to feed the baby. There is nothing odd about that, look around, its actually pretty common.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I'm realizing more and more that you seem to have a mind block when it comes to seeing things as they are. All I did was sit back, and take everything in, just the way it is. You don't have to brainstorm, just realize things for the way they are, and compare those to humans. By removing the technical differences, you are able to compare the rest of the life here to humans.

Take into account that we over use our ability to adapt, as we have to or we would die. From the overall picture, you can see that we are missing target food, and it didn't just go extinct. Everytime I bring up target food, you fail to do a fair comparison when your making your examples. Remember if they evolved, we should have too. If they have target food, and prove it by how so many do, then so should we, but we don't.

The anteater is another example of you not using fair comparison. He is so fine tuned to hunting and eating ants, and when I ask what we are fine tuned for, everyone says for making tools. So our hands, which our tools have to make more tools. It's a redundant answer that doesn't work. We were no intended to make tools, often times we have to make tools to make the tools, so there is just some more obvoius truth for you that its redundant work.. Redundant processes are proof that we are having to go out of our way to get something accomplished. Usually in several steps. Now if it were natural, we would accomplish the task with our hands, and end of story, but thats not how it works.

As a result, you have suffered by reducing your quality of life. You have to spend way more energy and time to get something accomplished that if it had been a natural scenerio, would have just been accomplished with your hands on the first work. This building of tools that we do, helps us get things accomplished because they need to be done, and in a way it saves us time as it would have taken much longer just doing it with our bare hands. There is a difference between using adaptation to speed up a process that remains natural, and one that is not. Most of the actions that man takes in this are unnatural.

When a person is having to accomplish a task with their hands that is either impossible, or takes so much time that its not doable, its just another clue that its a task that has to be done because we are out of our element. If its something that you can't do with your bare hands, then you are out of your element.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
How in the world can you look around and accept the idea of evolution? The great mysteries of the world remain unsolved and humanity has squandered all their resources on garbage. We have become an indulged planet of entitled gluttons with only sensibilities of greed and gluttony.
More plausible is the notion that SOME entities were looking for a refuge for souls that were occupied with loftier pursuits than what humanity is mired in.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Just because they have an odd step in feeding young is not proof of anything. Thats like saying human babies should have an accessible target food, but the problem here is that first of all his could have gone extinct. The other problem is humans could have an accesible target food as babies, we just don't know. On the other hand we have always assumed it the responsiblity of the mother to feed the baby. There is nothing odd about that, look around, its actually pretty common.


Human babies DO have a target food. It's called breast milk and it's readily available. Humans don't have to chew up something poisonous and regurgitate it for their young... but if they did we know you'd be the first to point it out and say it means we aren't from earth. By your logic, humans are more likely from earth than wasps.

You call that an "odd step" in feeding their young, but then when a human does something like grow a garden and harvest crops or cook food it is considered an odd step or process by you and referred to as not natural. How is cooking food or growing a garden any stranger than that?
edit on 26-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm realizing more and more that you seem to have a mind block when it comes to seeing things as they are. All I did was sit back, and take everything in, just the way it is.

Yeah I had that epiphany about 14 years ago when I realized how silly religion was.


Take into account that we over use our ability to adapt, as we have to or we would die.

Nope. Technology and "over adapting" as you call it, has only been around for a thousand years. How did we survive before agriculture? I've asked you this before and you left it ignored.


From the overall picture, you can see that we are missing target food, and it didn't just go extinct. Everytime I bring up target food, you fail to do a fair comparison when your making your examples. Remember if they evolved, we should have too. If they have target food, and prove it by how so many do, then so should we, but we don't.

Negative, captain. You make the unfair comparisons, because it's based on a completely made up concept that only applies to a handful a creatures in the history of our planet. You can't say something proves we aren't from earth, unless you can find a creature that doesn't have it, and then actually prove that they are indeed not from earth. That part needs to be proven before you can claim target food proves anything whatsoever. You know, experimentation and whatnot. The reason science exists.


We were no intended to make tools, often times we have to make tools to make the tools, so there is just some more obvoius truth for you that its redundant work.

Prove the intent. I know I've asked you.


Redundant processes are proof that we are having to go out of our way to get something accomplished.

Redundant processes? You mean like going from nest to nest over and over again to suck up ants. Yeah, that's not redundant or anything. Humans are redundant despite they have the biggest variety in their diet of any creature on it. It's redundant.



Now if it were natural, we would accomplish the task with our hands, and end of story, but thats not how it works.

I love when you set yourself up like this. Do we not use our hands to milk cows? Grow gardens? Do we not make tools with our hands? Do we not plan ahead using our intelligence? Again, how did we survive before agriculture. Please explain that.

We accomplish everything with our hands. I'm using them right now to communicate this message to you. Also here's a news flash for you. Unnatural means man made. It doesn't mean "not from earth". You may want to get that fact straight before claiming things are not natural and that it proves anything.


As a result, you have suffered by reducing your quality of life. You have to spend way more energy and time to get something accomplished that if it had been a natural scenerio, would have just been accomplished with your hands on the first work.

Already debunked this. Technology makes things easier, not harder and is all developed via our hands and our intellect. Creatures build things in the wild as well. Our designs are just significantly more complicated. You wanna know why? Because we're SMART!
edit on 26-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Star128
 





How in the world can you look around and accept the idea of evolution? The great mysteries of the world remain unsolved and humanity has squandered all their resources on garbage. We have become an indulged planet of entitled gluttons with only sensibilities of greed and gluttony.
More plausible is the notion that SOME entities were looking for a refuge for souls that were occupied with loftier pursuits than what humanity is mired in.
If evolution is real, it sure is failing.

Whats funny is that the end result in evolution is to ultimatley render new species, and when all is said and done they are talking about around a billion new species being made. Now evolutionists will never admitt that evolution is a creator, even though thats what it does. The odd part is how all of this emphasis is placed on creating new life, then evolutionists turn around in the same argument and claim that evolution is also responsible death and destruction when evolution is actually failing.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Human babies DO have a target food. It's called breast milk and it's readily available. Humans don't have to chew up something poisonous and regurgitate it for their young... but if they did we know you'd be the first to point it out and say it means we aren't from earth. By your logic, humans are more likely from earth than wasps.
Our ability to adapt is not any type of proof that we are from here.




You call that an "odd step" in feeding their young, but then when a human does something like grow a garden and harvest crops or cook food it is considered an odd step or process by you and referred to as not natural. How is cooking food or growing a garden any stranger than that?
If they occur naturally in the same way, then they are natural, otherwise no.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm realizing more and more that you seem to have a mind block when it comes to seeing things as they are. All I did was sit back, and take everything in, just the way it is.

Yeah I had that epiphany about 14 years ago when I realized how silly religion was.
There is no reason why religion should seem to be silly. The history of our life and how we came to be has nothing silly about it. Granted not everything in the bible is easily understood, but the marks I have brought up are clear that earth is not our home. You might think thats silly but I think its disturbing.




Take into account that we over use our ability to adapt, as we have to or we would die.

Nope. Technology and "over adapting" as you call it, has only been around for a thousand years. How did we survive before agriculture? I've asked you this before and you left it ignored.
I'm sorry but I never ignore anyone, I might think that the question is childless but thats it. The way we used to survive, was with a lot more work obviously and a lot more reduction in our quality of life.




From the overall picture, you can see that we are missing target food, and it didn't just go extinct. Everytime I bring up target food, you fail to do a fair comparison when your making your examples. Remember if they evolved, we should have too. If they have target food, and prove it by how so many do, then so should we, but we don't.

Negative, captain. You make the unfair comparisons, because it's based on a completely made up concept that only applies to a handful a creatures in the history of our planet. You can't say something proves we aren't from earth, unless you can find a creature that doesn't have it, and then actually prove that they are indeed not from earth. That part needs to be proven before you can claim target food proves anything whatsoever. You know, experimentation and whatnot. The reason science exists.
We don't have target food, thats allready been proven, there are other species that don't as well. Its odd how Dog is supposed to be mans best friend, and he too doesn't have any target food. We have to actually manufacture food for him. Is it possible that he has always been mans best friend since we were placed together?




We were no intended to make tools, often times we have to make tools to make the tools, so there is just some more obvoius truth for you that its redundant work.

Prove the intent. I know I've asked you.
Thats easy, its not natural. We have to use other tools, and electricty, and large machines to make tools so that we can complete tasks, its very redundant, and its not natural, there is no way it was intended.




Redundant processes are proof that we are having to go out of our way to get something accomplished.

Redundant processes? You mean like going from nest to nest over and over again to suck up ants. Yeah, that's not redundant or anything. Humans are redundant despite they have the biggest variety in their diet of any creature on it. It's redundant
Hey they have to eat, and I'll admit it looks redundant but ants are not that large, you probably have to eat a lot of them to fill up.




Now if it were natural, we would accomplish the task with our hands, and end of story, but thats not how it works.

I love when you set yourself up like this. Do we not use our hands to milk cows?
No we don't, we used a bucket, and a pale and sometimes gloves, and othertimes we use a large processing machine, and pasturization, and homogenization and fortify the milk so no your wrong, its not natural.

milk deaths

Just to prove to you that we aren't supposed to drink milk look at the deaths reported.




Grow gardens? Do we not make tools with our hands? Do we not plan ahead using our intelligence? Again, how did we survive before agriculture. Please explain that.
You have to plan ahead because your not in your natural enviroment.




We accomplish everything with our hands. I'm using them right now to communicate this message to you. Also here's a news flash for you. Unnatural means man made. It doesn't mean "not from earth". You may want to get that fact straight before claiming things are not natural and that it proves anything.
No but the fact that humans have been excluded from the term natural is also proof in itself that we are not natural to this planet.




Already debunked this. Technology makes things easier, not harder and is all developed via ou



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Already debunked this. Technology makes things easier, not harder and is all developed via our hands and our intellect.
Technology makes things easier, hum, I wonder why we would feel the need to make things easier, you can see your just a day late and a dollar short in understanding whats going on here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join