Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 42
6
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I still want to know where you stole the idea of target food. i simply do not believe you are capable of constructing this idea. You obviously have taken it from someone else and not properly attributed the source of the failed idea.




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I don't think tooth is intentionally lying, he is seeing things in what he reads that he assumes are there from comparing it to what is in is knowledge. Knowledge can be distorted by things we have read in the past or have assumed to be true. This is common amongst people, especially people with a lot of knowledge. It takes practice and some mistakes and humility to learn how to properly use increased awareness. His posts do have a lot of truth in them also, it is just not represented quite right. He's learning as are you and I.

I know much of the deers diet. I watched them eat and then investigated why they were eating it. It's amazing. I had a big Aspen tree blow over in the yard late last fall during high winds and the deer were eating it's leaves like crazy. I decided to research why. Seems the Poplar/aspen leaves are high in sacilicate, a form of silica which shares similarities with aspirin and helps blood flow. Steeping a few leaves in hot water and drinking the solution both helps blood flow and gets rid of some kinds of headaches. Maybe the deer ate too many fermented apples in the old orchards on abandoned farms.
Had to get rid of that hangover and
feeling I suppose.

Deer get cravings just like humans. These cravings come from imballances and toxic situations that need to be addressed to keep them healthy. People also have these cravings but we have been conditioned to ignore them most times. Who is smarter, the deer who passed on important information to their young or people who are led to believe that we need to take a pill to feel better. I experimented with feeding deer different things and the only thing that appeared to be negative is they got a little too fat. They adapted and now the offspring here can easily jump a ten foot high fence instead of eight foot. Did I alter something in their body chemistry? I forgot one thing before that deer do not eat along with dairy products. They don't eat raw bananas. They like banana bread though. Maybe this year I will see if they like coffee. Could you see them attacking hunters for their coffee?
edit on 5-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





That is a lie. That is not what you posted
Your clearly suffering from what most evolutionists suffer from. Your hearing or reading what you want to read rather than what is really there. If it wasnt clear in the first post, and I thought you were leaning toward the wrong understanding, I would have cleared it up asap.




The issue is that you wrote that animals do not eat rocks or dirt and you were wrong. It is an example of how little you know about animal feeding behavior.
Again I think your taking it out of context. I specifically meant not as a food replacement.




So once again you claim that grasses and forbs include fruit and twigs? You are simply clueless or more like a pernicious liar.
I don't remember saying that, but again within context of understanding how the deer might look at it.




Your link did not cover marshmallows or marshmallow manufacturers. You are wrong. The material used to make marshmallows comes from a particular animal. Again you are wrong to state that the labels tell you what you are eating. Many people in the US are unable to conscientiously consume marshmallows.
Well you haven't provided anything to support your claim of it being false, so until said time, YOUR claim is false.




You have provided no proof. You misrepresented an article. You are just a liar it seems.
I have provided links supporting my views, and you have not.




That never happened. You are telling another lie.
What you mean to say is you either cant comprehend it, or you don't want to because your so incredulous.




That takes the cake for the silliest comment of this post. For days you were unable to locate the diet of the deer despite the article being remarkably short. What you did post was not the diet of deer and did not include the diet of a browser. And it certainly did not include the main diet of a deer. I posted the correct diet long before you did. You still claim they are the same?
Again, from a general perspective, the diets were close enough. Where did you get that it took me days to locate the diet? Are you making things up, are you exeggerating?




Prove Pye is not a scientist and is a fraud?
Simple. He is pretending a skull is evidence of ETs.
Seeing how the composition of the skull is not anywhere near human, and the iniot is missing, and the eye socket depth couldn't house human eye balls, how the cranial space is 30% larger, there are a plethora of oddities that don't match up with it being able to be human. Probably the best part is how the nuclear DNA doesnt compare properly with the mtDNA indicating that this life form is not only not human but was also concieved through a process medically known as a zygote.

I would say you have a lot more against your claims than you do for them in pyes favor. It would probably benefit you to do some more research on the matter before you just jump to conclusions. I had to watch a few videos about this story to learn why the original DNA test was faulty.

IMO its the real deal. There are to many oddities with the skull that don't match up with it being human. Besides no one has come forward to try to disprove his claims.




I am not going to give you the answer that is easy for third graders to figure out. Someone finally had to tell you the answer to a question second graders know. You can whine and cry and lie about things you find online, but there I am not going to tell you the answer to what animal is used to make marshmallows. You don't deserve to be told the answer.
I wasn't asking for the answer, I could careless, if you haven't figured out.




I also proved that forbs is a word
No you proved that forb is a word.




You also showed that you were wrong in claiming that all animals have a concise diet.You did it twice. The first time was the squirrel diet. The second time was the deer diet. You called that one vague.

concise

con·cise/kənˈsīs/Adjective: Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.



Herbivore, fungi, and lichens qualify as a few in case you didn't know.




It is pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this fantasy called target foods. What I'd like to know is where you stole the idea. Pretty clear at this point is that you took someone's idea and you have not properly attributed the idea to whomever you stole it from.

So please tell us all where did this come from?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





It is pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this fantasy called target foods. What I'd like to know is where you stole the idea. Pretty clear at this point is that you took someone's idea and you have not properly attributed the idea to whomever you stole it from.

So please tell us all where did this come from?
Well thank you, that is the biggest compliment. To think that someone feels that my theory of target food is so credible that it must have been stolen. Target food is not stolen, it is realised.

At least with your reply I'm able to detect that you must obviously see how real it is, and how there is really something there.




So here we are still working on the report card.
1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
For trying to shift the goal posts
3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet. no change
4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved. no change
5. D - For claiming that fungi are plants. no change
6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence. no change
7. F - For not understanding gastroliths no change
8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same no change
9. D - For stating that deer have a concise diet change change
For trying to revert to your incorrect position
10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case no change
11. C - For attempting straw man arguments no change no change
It is bad to get high marks here.
12. F - For claiming the diet claims are from the deer's perspective no change
13. F - Looking up the term forbs and not getting past Forbes change
For pretending that I did not give you the link and incite into how to do better searches.
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen
15. F - For not understanding forbs is the plural of forb. Most English words are made plural by adding an s to the end of the word.
16. F - for being close minded and unable to see the evidence.
I'm skipping the report card as I have allready addressed it.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





What is the argument of twigs of trees in the deers diet about. I have much knowledge of the diet of deer, I've read many articles on them including articles from the forestry service on their impact on an the forests. Deer love the twigs on little trees and prune them almost perfectly with their teeth. The Hormonal compound in the buds is good for them in the spring, especially does that are pregnant. This keeps the forest from getting overgrown with little trees and actually keeps their natural grazing clearings from being grown in. They steer their environment just like humans do..

Must be a private forum, I'll just observe from now on
The problem is that I quoted a section of the diet about deer that wasn't exact with another portion later on in the article, so Stereo is claiming that I was false about the diet, even though its still the same basic diet.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Because, as a food stuff, they don't exist, vegetable gelatin substitutes do...but they are not allowed to be labeled as gelatin..........The truth is in the handbook. (you never read a word of it did you?)
I just glanced over it.




I don't believe you!
Why?




I am correct regardless as no one made you god of food classification, and it appears that we are free, in your delusion to classify food according to what we want it to show, ergo, fungus becomes plants and materials clearly derived from animals become.....what?......plant as well?
And now your understanding the problems with processed food.




I make no assumptions, I merely point out that you need to show that any supposed planet that you think animals originate from needs an abundance of the aforementioned materials.
I have no idea what your talking about.




Well so far you have proved nothing and assumed the existence of a great deal.
Target food is a big prove.




Once again you drag your own thread away from the point. Your thread title isnt about proving target food exists, you clearly state that target food proves evolution wrong.
And it does, as it can't work without prior intelligence behind it.




I don't care if it exists or not (It doesn't and you haven't shown anything that would lead anyone to believe otherwise), what I care about is you statement. with that in mind, please answer the question.

IF TARGET FOOD EXISTS, HOW DOES THIS DISPROVE EVOLUTION
Because the actions required for it to work require intellgence to be present on a multi level.
You can't have species knowing what food is good for them without intelligence.
You can't have species knowing what food they are suppose to eat without intelligence.
You can't have species knowing what not to eat without intelligence.
You can't have species knowing what food is available to eat, in order to programm what to eat, without intelligence.
Dont forget that you also need intelligence to program all these results.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Well that works both ways.....and means that every statement you have made thus far is........opinion.

All tooth statements-------------dismissed
Which is why I have given a plethora of links about diets that we have confirmed about various species. This alone proves target food. All species eat the same food within a species.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





I still want to know where you stole the idea of target food. i simply do not believe you are capable of constructing this idea. You obviously have taken it from someone else and not properly attributed the source of the failed idea.
That is such a compliment stereo, thank you, but no, its actually my idea.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Earth is currently in it's 6th largest mass extinction right now, and this is exactly why.


Not all extinctions are created equal, with some having up to 96% species die. What the Earth is going through now is nowhere near these levels (duh), so your argument is without merit.


Things are out of balance. Now according to evolutionists, this is perfectly normal and its all included in the large evolution bundle of theories and hypothesis.


To quote Lewis Black, when I hear something like this, I reach for a fossil, and I go like, "Fossil!".

It's not all theories and hypotheses, there are dead animals to be found and pegged to a particular period in Earth history. And I thought everyone knew that. I guess I'm not very evolved after all.



A target food would be a food source that was intended for that species.


Boy, what a logic fallacy. "Intended" by who exactly? By God our Lord? How can you prove a point by using arguments based on same? Weak mind. Very weak.


A target food will be natural and not processed.


What nonsense. We the primates are very good at forming our environment, such as (shudder! awe!) cooking our food, or fermenting our drinks (my favourite). Please don't tell me I can't bake a cake (very unnatural thing to do), brew some mead (yummy, but you have to take care for it to work), or pickle a herring (do it all the time, and it's highly unnatural, just try to pickle yourself). In fact, primates (like us) evolved to rely on processed food, to one degree or the other. Heck, even bears dig their fish in the sand to rot, and acquire a specific taste, I argue this is not natural, it's rotten fish. Remarkably, the Vikings did the same (gravlox).


Steps taken to acquire food will not be extreme. If you have to go through a plethora of steps to acquire this food, its not a target food.


Says who? Oh I forget the whole concept of "target food" is a bunch of baloney.


A good example is Cows Milk. Cows Milk is another animals milk, but we process it by homogenizing it, fortifying it, pasteurizing it.


This is only due to Big Business. Don't deify it, that would be stupid. I drank plenty of fresh milk (like straight from the cow 2 minutes ago) and it was cool. Pretty unusual to taste, so what. What does industry have to do with anything e.g. evolution?


With this redundant adaptation, its obvious that cows milk was not meant for us to drink, and no one is ever going to convince me otherwise.


I see, you have quite an open mind! At some point (I hope) you drank your mother's milk and it was fine, but some other milk -- oh no! Of course it's very different, but come on, same concept.


You see we never had a good calcium source.


You seriously need to start working on your education. Just google a little if you can't be bothered to open a book. There is plenty of calcium out there.


We can rule out cows Milk as a replacement to something else as we never knew of anything else we could eat that had sufficient calcium.


You seem to have never known much of anything, but please research primates. They always did fine. What an eye opener.
edit on 5-9-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist
 





I still want to know where you stole the idea of target food. i simply do not believe you are capable of constructing this idea. You obviously have taken it from someone else and not properly attributed the source of the failed idea.
That is such a compliment stereo, thank you, but no, its actually my idea.


I see. Irony and sarcasm are lost on you. Somehow, I'm not surprised.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





concieved through a process medically known as a zygote.


Dear lord........this is the intelligence level your dealing with people........



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Mods, can we have this thread retitled "Target food proves toothy insane"?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 



I don't think tooth is intentionally lying

I think that he telling lies on purpose. He lies about what he has posted. He lies about what others have posted. For example, he claims that a poster provided no links when the posts do contain links. The existence of links is a simple decidable issue and tooth decides to lie.


I know much of the deers diet.

Clearly you do.



They adapted and now the offspring here can easily jump a ten foot high fence instead of eight foot.

I had a deer limping in my yard. I was concerned that it was an outbreak of a hemorrhagic disease. Found out that the deer in question was jumping a 10 foot fence to feast on a garden plot. Might have suffered a bad landing.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your clearly suffering from what most evolutionists suffer from. Your hearing or reading what you want to read rather than what is really there. If it wasnt clear in the first post, and I thought you were leaning toward the wrong understanding, I would have cleared it up asap.

Please stop the excuses. Stop telling lies and I won't call you on it.


Again I think your taking it out of context. I specifically meant not as a food replacement.

I don't believe you.


I don't remember saying that, but again within context of understanding how the deer might look at it.

The problem with telling lies is that you get lost in that twisted clutter of lies. You have repeated claimed that grasses and forbs list you posted was the same as the list that included twigs and fruit.


Well you haven't provided anything to support your claim of it being false, so until said time, YOUR claim is false.

That makes no sense at all except maybe in your fantasy world.


I have provided links supporting my views, and you have not.

That's another lie.


What you mean to say is you either cant comprehend it, or you don't want to because your so incredulous.

Another another lie.


Again, from a general perspective, the diets were close enough. Where did you get that it took me days to locate the diet? Are you making things up, are you exeggerating?

The plants in the list were completely different. You can't possibly be pretending that a grazers diet is the same as a browsers diet.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Seeing how the composition of the skull is not anywhere near human, and the iniot is missing, and the eye socket depth couldn't house human eye balls, how the cranial space is 30% larger, there are a plethora of oddities that don't match up with it being able to be human. Probably the best part is how the nuclear DNA doesnt compare properly with the mtDNA indicating that this life form is not only not human but was also concieved through a process medically known as a zygote.

I would say you have a lot more against your claims than you do for them in pyes favor. It would probably benefit you to do some more research on the matter before you just jump to conclusions. I had to watch a few videos about this story to learn why the original DNA test was faulty.


The skull is a human skull.
en.wikipedia.org...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."


museumofhoaxes.com...
skeptoid.com...

The primary strike against them is the 2003 DNA analysis. The child had normal human DNA and was male, having both X and Y chromosomes, proving that it had a human female mother and a human male father. Young and Pye state that this is consistent with the alien-human hybrid theory, which it may be, who knows; no known alien DNA exists to use as a reference. But it is also consistent with a human child with a well documented and thoroughly understood illness.


Watch all the idiot videos you want. Meaningless drivel to keep a fraud like Pye alive.

www.checktheevidence.com...

We will likely never know the whole story of the Starchild, but what is clear is that aliens need not be invoked. The child very likely suffered from untreated hydrocephalus, a mundane and simple explanation for the anomalies seen in the skull. DNA testing confirms, unsurprisingly, the child’s human ancestry. Still, the true-believers are likely to cling tenaciously to their preferred hypotheses, and will continue to spin tales of an alien-human breeding program. Science progresses forward, while pseudoscience remains fixed in predetermined desired beliefs.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I wasn't asking for the answer, I could careless, if you haven't figured out.

What we do know is that you have almost no understanding of anything you post. Your posts are full of misrepresentations, mistakes, and outright lies.

You falsely claimed that labels tell you what you eat. You were wrong in that case. I chose a simple, common item and knew that the animal used to make the food item was not going to be located in a simple search engine query.


No you proved that forb is a word.

Forb and forbs are words in the standard English language. You are once again arguing from ignorance.
dictionary.reference.com...

Here is another hint for you. In Yahoo type define in front of a word. In Google type define: in front of a word.


Herbivore, fungi, and lichens qualify as a few in case you didn't know.

Why are a listing a herbivore with fungi and lichen?


Please tell us where you stole the idea of target foods. It clearly is not your idea. You took it from somewhere and have not attributed the source. Please do.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well thank you, that is the biggest compliment. To think that someone feels that my theory of target food is so credible that it must have been stolen. Target food is not stolen, it is realised.

It is not a credible idea. I think it is a very unintelligent idea. I just don't believe you dreamed up even this dismal concept.


At least with your reply I'm able to detect that you must obviously see how real it is, and how there is really something there.

A delusion on your part.

The report card is adding more items as you continue to flail.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The problem is that I quoted a section of the diet about deer that wasn't exact with another portion later on in the article, so Stereo is claiming that I was false about the diet, even though its still the same basic diet.

The two plant lists were very different. You lie each time you claim they are the same or even similar. One is a grazer diet and the other a browser diet.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Please take your ego stroking elswhere. If you have something that proves target food or for that matter disproves it by all means please share, but anything else, has a thread specifically for that topic I'm sure. But more importantly don't present yourself as a know it all, and that I have made mistakes, when thats just your opinion, this topic is not about opinions.
Hold on matey. Your title says target food proves evolution wrong but it is crystal clear you cannot even show target food exists.

How sad.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





As per your absolute blindness to see what is staring you in the face. Many animals eat and digest and assimilate into their very being specific rocks.

Everybody posting here does it, daily and out of necessity....yes even you.

You should view this as a little intellectual puzzle for yourself. See if you can work it out!
Seeing how it doesn't directly effect the idea of target food, it doesn't interest me.


It should...If you remove this rock from the equation, Then any target food that you could possibly come up with would be null and void.

All of the animals you have named will die without including this rock in its diet. FACT!
Catching up during a dull period but this is becoming a really gritty who done it or more to the point will he do it.

I am not going to turn to the last page to see and spoil the surprise. Will he or won’t he, that is the question





top topics
 
6
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join