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: 32
6
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



You would also appear to be wrong on the frequency that anteaters eat as well. According to a question asked about the frequency, its twice a day in captivity. Now if thats not the case in the wild then its possible they are having a problem finding a good supply which has nothing to do with your claim that they have to eat all day.

There is a big difference between them having to eat all day because they would be malnourished versus them eating all day because the food is just not there in plentifull form. The fact is they don't have to eat all day, and there are anteaters in captivity that eat twice a day and they are fine.

anteaters




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You also appear to be wrong about anteaters not taking to well to getting bit by ants, it appears they have a natural defense about it, which is eating the ants so fast that they don't have a chance to sting.

anteaters



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


You also appear to be wrong about anteaters not taking to well to getting bit by ants, it appears they have a natural defense about it, which is eating the ants so fast that they don't have a chance to sting.

anteaters


This is certainly the best link you've supplied yet.....some dudes tumbler blog....here's some other insightful info from the blog..



Reason 2. Anteaters are excellent at cunnilingus.

Reason 4. Anteaters look awesome.

Reason 5. Baby Anteaters are the cutest thing in history.


Her's an example of a real links:

National Geo - Anteater


The anteater uses its sharp claws to tear an opening into an anthill and put its long snout and efficient tongue to work. But it has to eat quickly, flicking its tongue up to 160 times per minute. Ants fight back with painful stings, so an anteater may spend only a minute feasting on each mound.


Wiki Anteater


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]


So....in reality it has no defence other then eat as quick as I can and get the fudge outta there. A strategy...not a defence. Also because of the stings, it must visit up to 200nests / day. Sounds like alot of work for some provided target food.

Also, please explain why there are 4 different SPECIES ( they can't breed together) of anteater. Please explain why it has been proven without a doubt, that anteaters are related to sloths and armadillos.

Were 4 different species of anteater brought here? Why are they related to other existing species?
edit on 26-8-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





So....in reality it has no defence other then eat as quick as I can and get the fudge outta there. A strategy...not a defence. Also because of the stings, it must visit up to 200nests / day. Sounds like alot of work for some provided target food.
That depends, if he is only spending about 2 minutes per nest, thats only 400 minutes. Humans actually spend more time than that eating in a day. We also spend more time preparing the meal, harvesting the meal, cooking the meal, packaging, delivering, and processing our dishes. I think he beat us paws down.




Also, please explain why there are 4 different SPECIES ( they can't breed together) of anteater. Please explain why it has been proven without a doubt, that anteaters are related to sloths and armadillos.
There is speculation through the eyes of evolution that there is a relation there. Again it's not proof.




Were 4 different species of anteater brought here? Why are they related to other existing species?
They could have all been brought here, or its even possible that they are from all different planets as well.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





So....in reality it has no defence other then eat as quick as I can and get the fudge outta there. A strategy...not a defence. Also because of the stings, it must visit up to 200nests / day. Sounds like alot of work for some provided target food.
That depends, if he is only spending about 2 minutes per nest, thats only 400 minutes. Humans actually spend more time than that eating in a day. We also spend more time preparing the meal, harvesting the meal, cooking the meal, packaging, delivering, and processing our dishes. I think he beat us paws down.




Also, please explain why there are 4 different SPECIES ( they can't breed together) of anteater. Please explain why it has been proven without a doubt, that anteaters are related to sloths and armadillos.
There is speculation through the eyes of evolution that there is a relation there. Again it's not proof.




Were 4 different species of anteater brought here? Why are they related to other existing species?
They could have all been brought here, or its even possible that they are from all different planets as well.


You've forgot the time to dig, time to find and time to travel to the 200 nests....

No evidence or facts supplied....only your opinion. I've supplied reputabe links and information, you have not. Try again.

Facts I supplied:
anteaters have no defence to the stinging of the ants.
there are 4 different SPECIES of anteaters ( yet all related, so no different planet excuse)
anteaters are POSITIVELY related to sloths and armadillos

Answer those claims with FACTS to refute them. I want a HUGE post with LEGIT links and info on the life of the anteater, the history, and genetic lineage, if you continue to use him as your proof. While supplying those LEGIT links and info, I want you to then explain how it fits in with your "target food proves evolution wrong".

You have yet to provide any substantiated facts or independent observation to back up your claim and thread title. Do it! Your opinion is crap here....

~ETA~ So you spend 400 mins = 6.7hrs / day ( not including travel and hunting time) simply eating? Yes the anteater has it easy.....

I forgot to ask...what's up with the aardvark?
edit on 26-8-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Something else strange...there are an estimated 22,000 species of ants ( they can't breed together). Does this mean all 22,000 species were brought here as well? Also, just like the lineage of the anteater, ants have relatives here on earth...i.e wasps and bees. Explain this please.

Wiki Ants


Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae (play /fɔrˈmɪsɨdiː/) and, along with the related wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera. Ants evolved from wasp-like ancestors in the mid-Cretaceous period between 110 and 130 million years ago and diversified after the rise of flowering plants. More than 12,500 out of an estimated total of 22,000 species have been classified.


Notice my use of reputable links and quoted material that confirms my direct claim? Follow suit please


And no, it's not speculation it's proven.

And just for fun here's a link to the definition of natural:

google natural


edit on 26-8-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

Oh yeah, it's a childless question. What you don't understand is that nothing was ever reduced in the quality of our lives, except when impact events and other natural disasters happened. From the dawn of humanity, things were tough, ie competition in nature, but life has been gradually getting easier and easier as science becomes a bigger part of society.



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?

You haven't proven a single thing. Prove that human's target food didn't go extinct. That was your excuse when it was PROVEN that most other creature do not have what you call "target food". You can't just talk about something wishfully and hope it's true. You need evidence.

1. Prove target food exists - not done
2. Prove target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth - not done
3. Prove that human hands and intelligence are not our primary strength as a species - not done
4. Prove that milk is not natural - not done
5. Prove that not natural means not from earth - not done
6. Prove how this imaginary concept proves evolution wrong - not done

Basically you haven't provided evidence for a single one of those concepts other than your own opinion. Sorry that doesn't work in the real world.


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.

You just repeated the same thing again. What does not natural (aka man made) have to do with intent! Natural only means not MAN MADE. Stop assuming it means 'not from earth'. It doesn't. It simply means it was created by humans. That's all! That doesn't mean it doesn't belong with nature. It's just a descriptive term to separate man made technology from mother nature. Humans = natural.



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.

Sometimes. Do you deny that humans can drink milk straight out of the cow? How did they do it in the past before technology? Keep digging the hole deeper. Too late to ever climb out and redeem yourself. You've gone off the deep end and as always you can't prove a single thing.



You have to plan ahead because your not in your natural enviroment.

NO, tooth. You are completely wrong. We plan ahead because it's convenient and makes our lives better. It's called using our intelligence to our advantage.



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.

We haven't been excluded. Humans ARE natural. We just use the terms to distinguish human made machines from nature. It doesn't mean we aren't from earth. You have no clue whatsoever as to what natural even means.


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.

We don't NEED to make it easier, we WANT to make it easier. We're smart enough to realize this. For 95+% of our history on earth, we were part of the competition in nature just like every other creature. You keep thinking that convenience and all of the other things based on our intelligence are done out of need. They aren't. They are done because we enjoy luxury. Why is this so hard to grasp?
edit on 27-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The whole 'humans aren't natural' thing is a tricky subject. All that natural means is that something occurs in nature without human intervention. Basically, what we are doing is using our ability to document and categorize the term to separate humans in our own little world and describe the difference between nature and human technology. What Tooth is essentially doing here is using the word natural to make it seem like we don't belong. Since it's just a categorizing system implement by us, it doesn't really mean that unnatural = bad or not from earth. It just means man made. Take a look at technology and its roots. Every thing we design and create does indeed come from nature. We harvest various natural things and then use them to make whatever we want. Is using wood from trees to build houses any different than a wasp using wood from trees to build his nest? Is a chimp creating a spear to help him hunt any different than a human crafting a sword for similar purposes? Not really. We just use more brainpower in the process.

There's a great show on Nat geo I believe called "Planet Carnivore". This is a must watch for Tooth so he can at least get a faint idea of how nature competes. Each episode they have a different predator and document the struggles they have to go through on a daily basis just to eat. Very good show.
edit on 27-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





You've forgot the time to dig, time to find and time to travel to the 200 nests....
There could be so many nests lined up that there is no time to search.




No evidence or facts supplied....only your opinion. I've supplied reputabe links and information, you have not. Try again.
The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.




Facts I supplied:
anteaters have no defence to the stinging of the ants.
Thats right, and from what I read they don't need any.




there are 4 different SPECIES of anteaters ( yet all related, so no different planet excuse)
anteaters are POSITIVELY related to sloths and armadillos
Just because there are close simularitys doesn't prove anything.




Answer those claims with FACTS to refute them. I want a HUGE post with LEGIT links and info on the life of the anteater, the history, and genetic lineage, if you continue to use him as your proof. While supplying those LEGIT links and info, I want you to then explain how it fits in with your "target food proves evolution wrong".
I have a better idea, since your so bent on being sure that evolution occured, please explain to me how you know it occured to the anteaters, and also explalin why it didn't happen to humans.




You have yet to provide any substantiated facts or independent observation to back up your claim and thread title. Do it! Your opinion is crap here....
Well thats sort of funny, I was going to say the same thing to you. All you have done is present links associated with evolutionists. Do you have any that don't apply to that region that still happen to agree with you like all my claims do?
The sources for the links I supplied about calcium all agree with my claims yet they don't believe in intervention. The links I provided about ant eaters agree with me, and they don't agree with intervention. The definitions I posted agree with my stiil they don't make any claims about intervention.

Lloyd Pye, Sitchen, Von daniken, and the bible all concur that intervention is what happened to us. Do you have something that proves them all wrong?




~ETA~ So you spend 400 mins = 6.7hrs / day ( not including travel and hunting time) simply eating? Yes the anteater has it easy.....
Your ETA is rejected as I'm not able to find anything to base it on. But it doesn't shock me that someone on the evolution side is doing some assuming again.




I forgot to ask...what's up with the aardvark?
Hes a different species.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





Something else strange...there are an estimated 22,000 species of ants ( they can't breed together). Does this mean all 22,000 species were brought here as well? Also, just like the lineage of the anteater, ants have relatives here on earth...i.e wasps and bees. Explain this please.
All brought here.




Notice my use of reputable links and quoted material that confirms my direct claim? Follow suit please

And no, it's not speculation it's proven.

And just for fun here's a link to the definition of natural:
Any link making a claim that a species changed into another species, is pure bunk. There have never been any completed tests that prove a species to change into another, in fact anytime that serious changes would occur, the species would die fast. There have never been any tests that prove that species change.

So you lied, your link is not reputable, its biased.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

Oh yeah, it's a childless question. What you don't understand is that nothing was ever reduced in the quality of our lives, except when impact events and other natural disasters happened. From the dawn of humanity, things were tough, ie competition in nature, but life has been gradually getting easier and easier as science becomes a bigger part of society.
Really, lets compare.

We will compare how an animal gets food and how we get food. But first you have to know that according to your claim, we not only don't have a reduction in the quality of life, but we are better off as our inventions and processes make the situation better. Just remember that you agree with this up untill this point.

First off, lets take a look at how an animal gets and eats his food. He searches for his food, attacks or startes eating his food, and hes done.

Humans, first raise the food, we do this by feeding the crops or the stock, tend to the stock or crops either with vaccines or vitamins. We harvest or slaughter, process usually by hand, package, ship, refridgerate. On our end we work a job to ear wages so that we can buy the food, then we process it by cooking it, cutting it so it fits in our mouths, do our dishes and we are done.

Animals use 2 steps at the most, and humans use 11, your clearly wrong.

But remember, you thought that we weren't just better off, but actually doing pretty good. As you can see by comparison to animals, we have suffered a serious reduction in our quality of life.




You haven't proven a single thing. Prove that human's target food didn't go extinct. That was your excuse when it was PROVEN that most other creature do not have what you call "target food". You can't just talk about something wishfully and hope it's true. You need evidence.
It's impossible to prove something didn't go extinct. The best proof is that we have no record, or knowledge of it ever happening.

We are able and aware of when an animals food goes extinct, and we have much work in order to keeping this information in obvious view as it is very scary. We would have been even more alarmed if our own food would have disappeard, I'm sure of it.




1. Prove target food exists - not done
Target food was already proven back when there was no basis found for integrated diet.




2. Prove target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth - not done
If you don't have anything to eat, its a pretty good clue you aren't from here, considering others do have food.




3. Prove that human hands and intelligence are not our primary strength as a species - not done
They probably are, its just that redundant adaptation is not.




4. Prove that milk is not natural - not done
Cows milk is natural to baby cows. You don't see other species sucking off the teat of other species.




5. Prove that not natural means not from earth - not done
You must be referring to the fact that google definitions seperates humans from the light of anything natural. I don't know, I didn't write the definition I'm just following it.




6. Prove how this imaginary concept proves evolution wrong - not done
There is no way we can all have preprogrammed diets, with the understanding of evolution.




Basically you haven't provided evidence for a single one of those concepts other than your own opinion. Sorry that doesn't work in the real world.
Actually I backed it up with proof from several pages of diet of many species, they all have scheduled diets.




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.

You just repeated the same thing again. What does not natural (aka man made) have to do with intent! Natural only means not MAN MADE. Stop assuming it means 'not from earth'. It doesn't. It simply means it was created by humans. That's all! That doesn't mean it doesn't belong with nature. It's just a descriptive term to separate man made technology from mother nature. Humans = natural.
Well the fact that man has been purposly removed from that picture of anything natural is an eye opener for sure. Now you may not fully understand what it means but I do.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.

Sometimes. Do you deny that humans can drink milk straight out of the cow? How did they do it in the past before technology? Keep digging the hole deeper. Too late to ever climb out and redeem yourself. You've gone off the deep end and as always you can't prove a single thing.
Sure if they wan't to take a chance on dying, did you not see the link I posted about all the fresh milk deaths? Now do you really need to ask yourself, is your food supposed to kill you?




You have to plan ahead because your not in your natural enviroment.

NO, tooth. You are completely wrong. We plan ahead because it's convenient and makes our lives better. It's called using our intelligence to our advantage.
We plan ahead because we have to or die. You never see the anteater planning ahead, ever wonder why?




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.

We haven't been excluded. Humans ARE natural. We just use the terms to distinguish human made machines from nature. It doesn't mean we aren't from earth. You have no clue whatsoever as to what natural even means.
But if you throw in an animal, in that picture, you can keep the word natural, its only when man is in it that its not. Now why is it that man is not considered to be natural to things? Because we aren't naturally from here.




We don't NEED to make it easier, we WANT to make it easier. We're smart enough to realize this. For 95+% of our history on earth, we were part of the competition in nature just like every other creature. You keep thinking that convenience and all of the other things based on our intelligence are done out of need. They aren't. They are done because we enjoy luxury. Why is this so hard to grasp
Of course we want to enjoy luxery, its something we don't naturaly get like other species do. Do you think the anteater worrys about luxery? He just goes out and eats when he gets hungry. Not us, its very complicated, first we have to find a job, then work the job, then cash our check, then go to the store to buy food we need. Granted we are to blame for making all these steps, but the question becomes why in the world would we do such a thing, because its easier? Easier then what?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





The whole 'humans aren't natural' thing is a tricky subject. All that natural means is that something occurs in nature without human intervention
In other words we are not natural in nature.




Basically, what we are doing is using our ability to document and categorize the term to separate humans in our own little world and describe the difference between nature and human technology.
But why would we be living in our own little world when we are supposedly living on a planet that was meant for us?




What Tooth is essentially doing here is using the word natural to make it seem like we don't belong. Since it's just a categorizing system implement by us, it doesn't really mean that unnatural = bad or not from earth. It just means man made.
You can sugar coat it, but the fact is the definitinon clearly seperates us from anything else considered natural.




Take a look at technology and its roots. Every thing we design and create does indeed come from nature.
Of course things came from nature, where else where they going to come from?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.
Ignoring the fact there is no such thing as an evolutionist that is a word made up by idiots and used by them to act as if evolution is not part of biology and science in general.

Your words do one thing though. They show another reason from your own pen why the bible is not acceptable as it is written by creationists. Don’t refer to it again after that reply.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Something else strange...there are an estimated 22,000 species of ants ( they can't breed together). Does this mean all 22,000 species were brought here as well? Also, just like the lineage of the anteater, ants have relatives here on earth...i.e wasps and bees. Explain this please.

All brought here.
Show your evidence or that is just your opinion as usual.


Any link making a claim that a species changed into another species, is pure bunk.
For once you are correct but where you are wrong is no link you have ever been given has ever made that claim. Species evolve they do not turn into. BIG difference.

How many times you need to be told/shown/have explained that very point? Your total lack of understanding of the world around you and the language you have no clue how to use is astounding.


There have never been any completed tests that prove a species to change into another,
See above.



There have never been any tests that prove that species change.
That is because a species does not change into a new species, they evolve.


So you lied, your link is not reputable, its biased.
Nope. He did not lie he supplied you with valid information and you have not got the intelligence to understand it or the wit to challenge your own insane delusion on this subject.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.

Ignoring the fact there is no such thing as an evolutionist that is a word made up by idiots and used by them to act as if evolution is not part of biology and science in general.
Ah go cry to your mum you evolutionist...


ev·o·lu·tion·ist/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənist/Noun: A person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.


Adjective: Of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection.


evolutionist




Your words do one thing though. They show another reason from your own pen why the bible is not acceptable as it is written by creationists. Don’t refer to it again after that reply.
On the contrary, you would be wrong. The whole problem was faith, and how not everyone believed in it, so you would be wrong again. But there you go making assumptions before you really think things through.




Something else strange...there are an estimated 22,000 species of ants ( they can't breed together). Does this mean all 22,000 species were brought here as well? Also, just like the lineage of the anteater, ants have relatives here on earth...i.e wasps and bees. Explain this please.

All brought here.

Show your evidence or that is just your opinion as usual.
There is documentation in the bible that clearly states this is what happened. Did you just choose to be ignorant, or you don't believe in history?




Any link making a claim that a species changed into another species, is pure bunk.

For once you are correct but where you are wrong is no link you have ever been given has ever made that claim. Species evolve they do not turn into. BIG difference.
Then let me rephrase what I meant to say was that no one has ever proven species to evolve to the point that they eventually become another spcecies.




How many times you need to be told/shown/have explained that very point? Your total lack of understanding of the world around you and the language you have no clue how to use is astounding.
Just because I sounded limited in my reply doesn't mean I never thought about it in more detail. Either way, no one has ever proven or witnessed the evolution processes that yeilds a new species.




There have never been any tests that prove that species change.

That is because a species does not change into a new species, they evolve.
Then let me rephrase, no one has ever witnessed or proven any species to have evolved.

What we have proven however is that some changes that were later discovered to be ADHD could have been viewed as evolution.




So you lied, your link is not reputable, its biased.

Nope. He did not lie he supplied you with valid information and you have not got the intelligence to understand it or the wit to challenge your own insane delusion on this subject.
I'm intelligent enough to see that it's clearly written by an evolutionist.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There is documentation in the bible that clearly states this is what happened. Did you just choose to be ignorant, or you don't believe in history?
You are clearly wrong as you posted this:


The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.
That being the case the bible being written by creationists is not a reputable source of information. End of story. End of yours anyhow.


Then let me rephrase what I meant to say was that no one has ever proven species to evolve to the point that they eventually become another spcecies.
Then what you meant to say was wrong as well.


There have never been any tests that prove that species change.

That is because a species does not change into a new species, they evolve.

Then let me rephrase, no one has ever witnessed or proven any species to have evolved.
Rephrase it how you like you are still wrong and have been supplied with many examples that you chose to ignore.


So you lied, your link is not reputable, its biased.

Nope. He did not lie he supplied you with valid information and you have not got the intelligence to understand it or the wit to challenge your own insane delusion on this subject.

I'm intelligent enough to see that it's clearly written by an evolutionist.
So that means everything you have written. All that opinion with no evidence are lies because you are a creationist. So maybe you are not as intelligent as you claim. We also have evidence in this thread and others that you are not.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There is documentation in the bible that clearly states this is what happened. Did you just choose to be ignorant, or you don't believe in history?

You are clearly wrong as you posted this:
Everyone knows about this as a fact.


Genesis


And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.





The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.

That being the case the bible being written by creationists is not a reputable source of information. End of story. End of yours anyhow.
Evolution was only made up recently. If you think it takes centurys to realize what created the diversity of life, you obviously have other problems. As far as I know, not all people involved in the writting of the bible were faithful followers.

You have no proof, your once again assuming.




Then let me rephrase what I meant to say was that no one has ever proven species to evolve to the point that they eventually become another spcecies.

Then what you meant to say was wrong as well.
No it stands correct as evolution has never been proven.




There have never been any tests that prove that species change.

That is because a species does not change into a new species, they evolve.

Then let me rephrase, no one has ever witnessed or proven any species to have evolved.

Rephrase it how you like you are still wrong and have been supplied with many examples that you chose to ignore.
Evolution is addmittedly an unproven theory.




So you lied, your link is not reputable, its biased.

Nope. He did not lie he supplied you with valid information and you have not got the intelligence to understand it or the wit to challenge your own insane delusion on this subject.

I'm intelligent enough to see that it's clearly written by an evolutionist.

So that means everything you have written. All that opinion with no evidence are lies because you are a creationist. So maybe you are not as intelligent as you claim. We also have evidence in this thread and others that you are not.
You don't have to be a creationist to see the wrongfull claims about evolution.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There is documentation in the bible that clearly states this is what happened. Did you just choose to be ignorant, or you don't believe in history?

You are clearly wrong as you posted this:

The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.

That being the case the bible being written by creationists is not a reputable source of information. End of story. End of yours anyhow.

Everyone knows about this as a fact. Genisis
So you finally supply a link to a site and it is a site written by creationists so by your rules means that it is not reputable.

So in one line you demonstrate how dishonest you are but even more pertinent that you do not know what a fact is or is not. What constitutes evidence and what does not, pathetic even at your age.


The links you supplied aren't reputable, they are written by evolutionists.

That being the case the bible being written by creationists is not a reputable source of information. End of story. End of yours anyhow.

Evolution was only made up recently.
Evolution was described 150 years ago after years of observations and experiments. Many have challenged it. ALL have failed.


If you think it takes centurys to realize what created the diversity of life, you obviously have other problems.
If you think all it takes is imagination to explain the diversity we see around us then it is you that has problems just like your problem of not understanding evolution has nothing to say on the subject of creation. How many times do you need telling that?


As far as I know, not all people involved in the writting of the bible were faithful followers.

You have no proof, your once again assuming.
It is YOU that is assuming demonstrated by your reply above. You show you do not even understand the word assume


The bible was written by and edited by those that believe in creation with the sole purpose of showing creation. That alone rules it out from being of any value as an historical document.

The rest of your replies which made up your post that contained no answers just your childish denial with no evidence offered. IGNORED.


So you lied, your link is not reputable, its biased.

Nope. He did not lie he supplied you with valid information and you have not got the intelligence to understand it or the wit to challenge your own insane delusion on this subject.

I'm intelligent enough to see that it's clearly written by an evolutionist.

So that means everything you have written. All that opinion with no evidence are lies because you are a creationist. So maybe you are not as intelligent as you claim. We also have evidence in this thread and others that you are not.

You don't have to be a creationist to see the wrongfull claims about evolution.
But by your weird logic if you are a creationist then you are not a reputable source of information. You are a creationist and have proved that you are not a reputable source every time you post.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Really, lets compare.

We will compare how an animal gets food and how we get food. But first you have to know that according to your claim, we not only don't have a reduction in the quality of life, but we are better off as our inventions and processes make the situation better. Just remember that you agree with this up untill this point.

First off, lets take a look at how an animal gets and eats his food. He searches for his food, attacks or startes eating his food, and hes done.

Humans, first raise the food, we do this by feeding the crops or the stock, tend to the stock or crops either with vaccines or vitamins. We harvest or slaughter, process usually by hand, package, ship, refridgerate. On our end we work a job to ear wages so that we can buy the food, then we process it by cooking it, cutting it so it fits in our mouths, do our dishes and we are done.

Animals use 2 steps at the most, and humans use 11, your clearly wrong.

But remember, you thought that we weren't just better off, but actually doing pretty good. As you can see by comparison to animals, we have suffered a serious reduction in our quality of life.

Dude, you completely changed the subject AGAIN! Please try to be just a little bit honest. Would it really hurt? None of that applies to humans prior to agriculture, so you are dead wrong and again just making stuff up. You completely ignored my main point which was that humans DID NOT ALWAYS use all these "processes". They used to hunt and compete with nature just like all other creatures. You gonna ignore this again and change the subject comparing modern day humans? Watch planet carnivore and you'll see creatures that have to go through a much LONGER process than 11 steps to get their food. You act as though it's easy.

Humans go out into the forest. They pick berries, nuts and vegetables to eat . That's not an 11 step process. You are wrong again.



It's impossible to prove something didn't go extinct. The best proof is that we have no record, or knowledge of it ever happening.

That was your exact excuse for why most creatures don't have target food and again it's just a guess. Nothing you have said proves anything.




1. Prove target food exists - not done
Target food was already proven back when there was no basis found for integrated diet.

That's a lie.




2. Prove target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth - not done
If you don't have anything to eat, its a pretty good clue you aren't from here, considering others do have food.

Another lie. Humans have plenty to eat.




4. Prove that milk is not natural - not done
Cows milk is natural to baby cows. You don't see other species sucking off the teat of other species.
The lies just keep coming. Something is either man made or its not. Stop lying and saying that something is natural for one creature but not for another. Is milk man made? Ok then, you are wrong.




5. Prove that not natural means not from earth - not done
You must be referring to the fact that google definitions seperates humans from the light of anything natural. I don't know, I didn't write the definition I'm just following it.

You didn't prove anything. You are saying that unnatural indicates that something isn't from earth, when that's not true. You need to prove it.



Actually I backed it up with proof from several pages of diet of many species, they all have scheduled diets.

That's a lie. No creature has "scheduled diets". They eat what they can to survive, another point that's been ignored over and over and over again.

The rest of your post is just nonsensical drivel not even remotely close to science. How many times are you going to get caught lying?
edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join