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: 47
6
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Man up ..... The truth is you didnt know and never had the wit or capability to find out.
No I'm being honest when I say I had no intent of changing the subject of the thread.




Why would we argue?

1. Stereologist has discovered you are a liar, just as I did. We agree so no argument there.

2. We both have shown you in many ways that target food is a fantasy. The construct of a weak and uneducated mind. Again no argument there.

3. We both post and repeat the same questions because you refuse to give a reasoned, logical answer backed up with evidence not your ignorance. Again, no argument there.

4. You avoid/deflect/ignore giving answers to any challenging questions and deny ALL evidence we show you. Again no conflict.

5. He gives you higher grades than I would award you so I suppose we could argue about that.

Well done Stereo, you have earned all the stars I have given you

I noted you have not answered my questions on salt. Try doing that. (This is why I keep asking the same questions)


Tooth
Stereo has done nothing but try to change the subject of the thread, he always profiles me, and is always never backing up his claims with any links or proof. Just very opinionated.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The fact that we have to process it to make it good for consumption is proof alone it wasn't meant for us.


Are you ever going to stop the blatant lies? Processing food is not necessary, we've already covered this. I don't know why you keep dishonestly going back to your original points as if they haven't been debunked or nothing has changed since page 1.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You have been very quite on the subject of the rock otherwise known as salt but seeing as though every animal on this planet would die without it, then it must be part of the mythical 'target food'.

Can you explain why the tongue has areas that specifically identify salt?

Can you now explain why every animal on this planet would die if they get too much salt?

Can you explain why you had to be told the answer?
That would be because my thread isn't about rocks.

If I did research and read about it, I'm sure I could, but this thread isn't about rocks or salt.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There isn't anything in the realm of science that has ever explained how a species knows a food is good for them.

Again you argue from your own ignorance on the subject. I pointed you towards several resources discussing eating habits and the mechanisms by which animals feed and the various morphological constructs employed. You need to learn into of making up fantasies such as what you wrote.


Your just a profiler. This isn't a court case where discrediting the author means the author is wrong about everything else.

Learn English. That is not the correct word. The issue is that you offer no evidence. What you do is state opinion and assumptions. The bulk of what you state is based on a logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance.

In this case you asked for why I claim you need further education. I provided the evidence. It is ample. Now you say that I am wrong to show the evidence that you asked for.



You mean like giving me the word forbs that was supposed to be forb?

Another example of a lack of education. One word is singular and the other is plural. I told you to add "define:' in front of a word. I showed you a link which used both forms. You still whine at your own incompetence.


Neither, the tags started working yesterday and didn't the day before.

I might as well tell you that Google doesn't use tags. Been watching you make another mistake for a few days now. Might as well help you out.


Thats the whole point there is no definition for forbs, its forb.

You do like to make yourself look foolish in front of everyone don't you? It's the plural. Some schools teach that s is used to make plurals in kindergarten.


I don't need Pye shown to be a liar, he needs to be proven a liar, they are just more opinion, like your rubbish

You are more than welcome to shun the clear evidence that Pye is aliar and a charlatan. You can suck up to his stupidity and do whatever you want. Pye is still a hoaxer collecting money from dopes.


It has to be as there is never experimentation until they all realise the same diet.

I showed a refereed article that shows snails are experimental eaters. All animals experiment with food. If you ever got outside you could see it for yourself.


Actually the problem here is that your buying into the links that offer no proof pye is a liar, which actually just shows what your willing to believe in.

I hear that there are people so uneducated and morbidly gullible that they believe Pye when he tries to discredit the DNA test that showed all of the DNA was human: child and both parents. Hard to believe, but there are people with that limited cognitive abilities.


Well you claim that bark was left off, I never saw anything that proved that so its entirely your opinion. So all the wikis are wrong and your right, this is just another case of YOU being right and EVERYONE else being wrong.

No. You claim to have read a snippet online that deer eat bark. The wikipedia does not list bark as a part of the deer diet. Thus you yourself know that the wikipedia article is incomplete. No wonder. The wikipedia is a place to find limited material or shall we say introductory material on a wide range of subjects.


There were three sections where diet was mentioned, I did not know this at first. Either way it doesn't matter as the diets are very close, how come you keep missing that fact?

Again you argue from your personal ignorance on the subject.

Compare the lists you say they are very close. So where do twigs and fruit appear in the list you posted. Are twigs and fruit grasses? Are twigs and fruit forbs? Are twigs and fruit herbaceous?


It wasn't google that failed me, it was you misspelling the word. By adding an S to the end, I would never find it that way, not knowing what the word was, I had no way of knowing if the s was part of the word or indicating that it was pluarl. It was entirely your fault.

I added an s because I write in proper English. Stop the whining about your uneducated, incompetent efforts. The failure is all yours.

Had you asked me I would have assisted you. I tried to assist you several times by telling you how to use google. All I get in response is childish crying and whining and you telling another childish lie that forbs is not a word.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You say these, and you present nothing. LOL.

I provided 2 links to two very different resources. One was the wikipedia - your fav place.


Why not, you believe someone that slanders pye with no proof, and I have proof of target food.

It wasn't slander. It was well presented facts. You need to learn what slander means. The proof was not just ample, but incontrovertible.


All you do is speculate, and show your opinion. You never prove your side with information.

I have provided lots of information. It is you that still has not presented 1 piece of evidence to support target foods. They stand as a fantasy at this point.


Then you are failing as you haven't produced anything to prove it wrong.

Evolution shows it is a fantasy.
The complete and utter lack of evidence shows it is a fantasy.


Of course not, its the magic of evolution isn't it LOL

You are arguing from your personal ignorance on the subject.

You probably have no idea that this just says to everyone that you have no idea what this is about and you refuse to learn and you just don't believe for no particular reason other than to show others how poorly you understand things.


So now your changing your story, now your lying, at first you claimed they don't all eat the same food and there is no proof. Enviroment does play a role in this but its not the only factor.

Again you argue from ignorance.

I never wrote they eat the same food. You did, not me.


That was the whole point, evolution makes no claims about why species eat the way they do, I guess they will have to come up with something and add this to their large library of theories now.

We all recognize that you do not understand anything at all about biology and evolution. Say something as meaningless as this simply reinforces what we already know.

You have no idea what random means. That is certain.


I haven't studdied them enough to know, and I obviously can't just take your word for it as your not a good source.

An educational resource produced by one of the leading scientific journals in the world is not a good source. That reminds me of the creationist knucklehead that tells one of the leading zoologists of the world, "You really need to take an intro bio course." Creationists are such a laughing stock.


Evolution never made any claims about current diet of species so I seriously doubt if evolution proves target food to be wrong.

You wouldn't know because you don't know anything about evolution or its theories or even the very basics about life on Earth. (Or even how to use google for that matter)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The fact that we have to process it to make it good for consumption is proof alone it wasn't meant for us.

People drink raw milk all of the time. What are you talking about?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Stereo has done nothing but try to change the subject of the thread, he always profiles me, and is always never backing up his claims with any links or proof. Just very opinionated.

You lied again. I back up my claims with links.

The one thing completely missing from this thread is any evidence at all about the existence of target foods. So far we have nada. Why? Because it is a fantasy.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That would be because my thread isn't about rocks.

If I did research and read about it, I'm sure I could, but this thread isn't about rocks or salt.

You were the one that clearly claimed that animals do not eat rocks. When it has been shown to be a mistake on your part you pretend that you are not the source of the statement.

You also pouted for days that animals do not eat rocks even after example after example was offered.

The issue really is that you know nothing at all about animals. The mistakes about deer and squirrel diets and abalone diets and all the rest are prime example, i.e. evidence, that you are basing your position on whimsical fantasies unrelated to reality.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Again you argue from your own ignorance on the subject. I pointed you towards several resources discussing eating habits and the mechanisms by which animals feed and the various morphological constructs employed. You need to learn into of making up fantasies such as what you wrote.
I would like to see that.




Learn English. That is not the correct word. The issue is that you offer no evidence. What you do is state opinion and assumptions. The bulk of what you state is based on a logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance.
How can it be a fallacy when its based on the facts of current diets of various species? Are they all wrong too?




In this case you asked for why I claim you need further education. I provided the evidence. It is ample. Now you say that I am wrong to show the evidence that you asked for
But you have never shown any evidence, your obviously delusional.




Another example of a lack of education. One word is singular and the other is plural. I told you to add "define:' in front of a word. I showed you a link which used both forms. You still whine at your own incompetence.
Hey all I know is that up untill yesterday it wasn't a hot of enough word for google to recognize it.




I might as well tell you that Google doesn't use tags. Been watching you make another mistake for a few days now. Might as well help you out.
The important part is you know what I mean, which is pretty good so far.




You do like to make yourself look foolish in front of everyone don't you? It's the plural. Some schools teach that s is used to make plurals in kindergarten.
I never claimed to not understand, you assuming is just a common practice amongst evolutionists.




You are more than welcome to shun the clear evidence that Pye is aliar and a charlatan. You can suck up to his stupidity and do whatever you want. Pye is still a hoaxer collecting money from dopes.
Without proof your just voicing your opinion.




I showed a refereed article that shows snails are experimental eaters. All animals experiment with food. If you ever got outside you could see it for yourself.
I think experience has proven to us that more species know what they are eating, and all eat the same things within a species. We also know for a fact that experimenting with food is not a common thing mentioned in any species. Because its not common, YOUR WRONG.




I hear that there are people so uneducated and morbidly gullible that they believe Pye when he tries to discredit the DNA test that showed all of the DNA was human: child and both parents. Hard to believe, but there are people with that limited cognitive abilities.
The test from 242 proved differently.

Like I said I'm not going to do your homework for you, you need to do that for yourself.




No. You claim to have read a snippet online that deer eat bark. The wikipedia does not list bark as a part of the deer diet. Thus you yourself know that the wikipedia article is incomplete. No wonder. The wikipedia is a place to find limited material or shall we say introductory material on a wide range of subjects.
You must be suffering from selective amnesia, as I have allready explained that this is because bark is not a regular part of a deers diet, as indicated in the article.

Wiki is not going to compile a list of all possible things a species might eat if they were starving including rocks.and dirt.




Again you argue from your personal ignorance on the subject.

Compare the lists you say they are very close. So where do twigs and fruit appear in the list you posted. Are twigs and fruit grasses? Are twigs and fruit forbs? Are twigs and fruit herbaceous?
They can be connected to the herbivore diet.




I added an s because I write in proper English. Stop the whining about your uneducated, incompetent efforts. The failure is all yours.

Had you asked me I would have assisted you. I tried to assist you several times by telling you how to use google. All I get in response is childish crying and whining and you telling another childish lie that forbs is not a word.
Not knowing that an S had been added to the word forb has nothing to do with how I use google, in addition to the fact that google didn't recognize either word untill yesterday.




I provided 2 links to two very different resources. One was the wikipedia - your fav place
Well I must have missed them.




It wasn't slander. It was well presented facts. You need to learn what slander means. The proof was not just ample, but incontrovertible
I must have missed them.




I have provided lots of information. It is you tha



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





I have provided lots of information. It is you that still has not presented 1 piece of evidence to support target foods. They stand as a fantasy at this point.
You haven't provided a snippet of information that proves target food to be wrong. The only thing you have at this point is speculation and opinion.




olution shows it is a fantasy.
The complete and utter lack of evidence shows it is a fantasy.
Evolution failed to cover the areas of target food in their description.




You are arguing from your personal ignorance on the subject.

You probably have no idea that this just says to everyone that you have no idea what this is about and you refuse to learn and you just don't believe for no particular reason other than to show others how poorly you understand things.
Very little understanding is need as most of the work has allready been done through the knowing of diets of various species.




Again you argue from ignorance.

I never wrote they eat the same food. You did, not me.
You changed your story.




We all recognize that you do not understand anything at all about biology and evolution. Say something as meaningless as this simply reinforces what we already know.

You have no idea what random means. That is certain.
Our understanding about biology has nothing to do with the diets that have allready been recorded. It's too late for you to try to complicate matters by using leverage that is to late.




An educational resource produced by one of the leading scientific journals in the world is not a good source. That reminds me of the creationist knucklehead that tells one of the leading zoologists of the world, "You really need to take an intro bio course." Creationists are such a laughing stock.
Our understanding of things may not be online with understanding how target food works.




You wouldn't know because you don't know anything about evolution or its theories or even the very basics about life on Earth. (Or even how to use google for that matter)
You mean googles don't you
.




People drink raw milk all of the time. What are you talking about?
Did you not read the articles I posted about people dying from drinking raw milk, and all of the side effects of milk to boot?




You lied again. I back up my claims with links.

The one thing completely missing from this thread is any evidence at all about the existence of target foods. So far we have nada. Why? Because it is a fantasy.
I didn't see your links, sorry. You must have missed all my proof as well it looks like.




You were the one that clearly claimed that animals do not eat rocks. When it has been shown to be a mistake on your part you pretend that you are not the source of the statement.

You also pouted for days that animals do not eat rocks even after example after example was offered.

The issue really is that you know nothing at all about animals. The mistakes about deer and squirrel diets and abalone diets and all the rest are prime example, i.e. evidence, that you are basing your position on whimsical fantasies unrelated to reality.
Keep pouting and show some proof.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I made this point a few times already, but apparently the original post does contain a very explicit phrase to support it.

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


So that's how you define it. "Intent", of course, is an attribute of consciousness. A completely natural process cannot have an intent. So by starting with intent, you already proclaim the existence of a supernatural intelligence, which you then proceed to prove via this concept "target food" anyhow.

You see, if you postulate "A is true", it is very, very silly to go around in circles and pretend that you are proving that "A is true", to then triumphantly arrive to "A is true". All the food labels and nutrients are really beside the point.

It's like saying "most humans are between 5 and 6 feet in height. This is the intended height for humans. It feels natural, and for centuries humans have been sewing cloth to fit this particular size. It's called 'target height'. So, there is a problem with evolution, because how do you explain that target height was created specifically for humans?".

Yup, it sounds THAT stupid.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No I'm being honest when I say I had no intent of changing the subject of the thread.
Here you are avoiding the question again. Salt is a vital part of the diet of ALL life on this planet. They get salt in their diet. So it is very much on topic.

Your problem is you are to scared to address the question and so you respond as you have done here.


Stereo has done nothing but try to change the subject of the thread, he always profiles me, and is always never backing up his claims with any links or proof. Just very opinionated.
Nope. Stero has questioned your fantasy and you have responded in your usual dishonest fashion. He has provide you with a 'plethora' of links, all of which you deny, ignore or give an ignorant one line dismissal. Very you.

Now you make your silly claim of being profiled. Explain what you mean by that.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I would like to see that.

You might try reading this thread to learn. Look for my more recent posts.


How can it be a fallacy when its based on the facts of current diets of various species? Are they all wrong too?

The logical fallacy is you stating that you are unaware or incapable of learning or incapable of finding something thus it is not whatever.


But you have never shown any evidence, your obviously delusional.

Your obviously a liar.


Hey all I know is that up untill yesterday it wasn't a hot of enough word for google to recognize it.

That is not how google works.


The important part is you know what I mean, which is pretty good so far.

I know you make things up.


I never claimed to not understand, you assuming is just a common practice amongst evolutionists.

Obviously you don't understand evolution since it is not based on assumptions. It is based on facts.


Without proof your just voicing your opinion.

I posted plenty of evidence available to those unafraid to check it out.


I think experience has proven to us that more species know what they are eating, and all eat the same things within a species. We also know for a fact that experimenting with food is not a common thing mentioned in any species. Because its not common, YOUR WRONG.

Again you are making up baloney. Feeding behaviors within a species are constrain by issues such as morphological structures and digestive methods. Experimenting with food is common. You first claimed it never happens and that is absurd. Filter feeders and scavengers and opportunistic feeders take whatever comes their way.


The test from 242 proved differently.

Like I said I'm not going to do your homework for you, you need to do that for yourself.

FIrst it one thing and then another and now we are back to 242. Pye lied about that lab. It doesn't exist and some people were so stupid they believe him. Can you believe it tooth? Some people were so stupid they believe that this unnamed lab with unnamed staff reversed the real labs findings. Pye paints a fantasy and doofus wackos fall for it.


You must be suffering from selective amnesia, as I have allready explained that this is because bark is not a regular part of a deers diet, as indicated in the article.

You lie. Then again that is what you do almost half the time.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





You have been very quite on the subject of the rock otherwise known as salt but seeing as though every animal on this planet would die without it, then it must be part of the mythical 'target food'.

Can you explain why the tongue has areas that specifically identify salt?

Can you now explain why every animal on this planet would die if they get too much salt?

Can you explain why you had to be told the answer?
That would be because my thread isn't about rocks.

If I did research and read about it, I'm sure I could, but this thread isn't about rocks or salt.

Your thread is about showing proof that 'target food' proves evolution wrong. You seem very happy not to address that claim.

Salt is part of the staple diet of every living thing on this planet. The fact that you do not understand this vital ingredient of EVERY living thing and claim it has nothing to do with diet shows how little you understand the subject you claim to be an expert on.

So Again:

You have been very quite on the subject of the rock otherwise known as salt but seeing as though every animal on this planet would die without it, then it must be part of the mythical 'target food'.

Can you explain why the tongue has areas that specifically identify salt?

Can you now explain why every animal on this planet would die if they get too much salt?

Can you explain why you had to be told the answer?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Wiki is not going to compile a list of all possible things a species might eat if they were starving including rocks.and dirt.

In y our pointless way you admit finally that the wikipedia is incomplete. Rocks and dirt are commonly eaten as I pointed out in links to minerals links. Maine has re-engineered its water runoff channels to stop moose car accidents. These deer were lured to roads and danger because of the easily eaten mineral deposits.


They can be connected to the herbivore diet.

That is a useless statement. The 2 lists are completely different. The more you lie that they are the same the more ludicrous and inept you appear.


Not knowing that an S had been added to the word forb has nothing to do with how I use google, in addition to the fact that google didn't recognize either word untill yesterday.

You're a liar since I have been able to good that word for years. All you are saying is that you are incompetent - nothing else.


Well I must have missed them.

Try reading the thread.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You haven't provided a snippet of information that proves target food to be wrong. The only thing you have at this point is speculation and opinion.

You are the one promoting this fantasy. The onus is on you to provide evidence. So far not 1 piece of evidence has been submitted.


Evolution failed to cover the areas of target food in their description.

Evolution theory is based on facts, not fantasies.


Very little understanding is need as most of the work has allready been done through the knowing of diets of various species.

We all know you understand virtually nothing. That's ok. We are here trying to help you learn. What is clear is that you know nothing about diets and for days and days could not figure out what a deer's diet was in the wikipedia.


You changed your story.

I don't believe you are telling a lie since you have recently admitted that you failed to read the thread. Let's just say this is your confusion.


Our understanding about biology has nothing to do with the diets that have allready been recorded. It's too late for you to try to complicate matters by using leverage that is to late.

An idiotic argument of no value. This is all about biology. Diets are guesses and often incomplete as has been seen by leaving out bark for deer and predation by squirrels.


Our understanding of things may not be online with understanding how target food works.

Target foods are a fantasy unrelated to the real world.


You mean googles don't you

Sorry I do not understand your comment. I used proper English and the name of the organization.


Did you not read the articles I posted about people dying from drinking raw milk, and all of the side effects of milk to boot?

People die all of the time from eating vegetables and fruit. So what?


I didn't see your links, sorry. You must have missed all my proof as well it looks like.

There you go again telling lies. You have offered zero evidence for target foods. You lie because the last time you made this nitwit claim you admitted that you assumed target foods.


Keep pouting and show some proof.

Learn the difference between evidence and proof.

BTW, I asked some 4th graders and they all knew the animal used to make marshmallows and that animals eat a rock called salt. I realize it isn't fair to ask 9 and 10 years old and then compare it to you, but I did it anyways.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





So that's how you define it. "Intent", of course, is an attribute of consciousness. A completely natural process cannot have an intent. So by starting with intent, you already proclaim the existence of a supernatural intelligence, which you then proceed to prove via this concept "target food" anyhow.
I never said it had to be supernatural. Anyhow evolution fails to explain how it is that species are smart enough to target proper food, and smart enough to not target things that aren't food, and smart enough to all do the same choices within a species, and also smart enough to know which food is actually good for their specific needs.




You see, if you postulate "A is true", it is very, very silly to go around in circles and pretend that you are proving that "A is true", to then triumphantly arrive to "A is true". All the food labels and nutrients are really beside the point.
In fact they are not. In those rare cases where a species appears to be eating one or more target foods, it appears that food just so happens to fill the need in nutrition in a great way.




It's like saying "most humans are between 5 and 6 feet in height. This is the intended height for humans. It feels natural, and for centuries humans have been sewing cloth to fit this particular size. It's called 'target height'. So, there is a problem with evolution, because how do you explain that target height was created specifically for humans?".

Yup, it sounds THAT stupid.
And your argument is an ideal example of just how wrong scientists can be on making assumptions, and in fact I recently used this exact example in an earlier thread. You can't base everything on an assumption and assume we are all suppose to be a certain height, when its all an assumption to begin with. Target food is based on patterns that are observed from many species. Now you can assume that ALL the species aren't eating correct, but then they don't all fit the same catagory. It's obvious there are some differences, and the they can vary greatly.

Arguing we are suppose to be between 5 or 6 feet tall is like saying only planet earth could house species that breath air, that fact is we don't know. I look at things from the other angle, there is obviously nothing special about breathing air, as over 5 million species do it. Based on that the chances of there being other planets that house air breathing species is probably very high. Never mind the fact that the bible claims all species were brought here from other planets.

The fact that species eat food, and don't pick up rocks and dirt and mistake those for food tells us at least they have some knowledge of what they are eating. They are able to differentiate between rock / dirt and something that is actuall food. Now you can claim its all instinct, and I could agree, but who or what programmed that instinct. It's as though they have a prior knowledge of the food that is available, so that they can be programmed to know what to eat.

Yes its true that a species will eat anything when its starving, but Target food is based on the structure of their being choices, and yet very specific ones are sometimes made, while in some cases its a little more broad.

Humans are the classic example of a species with NO Target Food. Based on the fact that we have a plethora of food items in every food group, and have even created some of our own food groups. This is proof positive of a species that is missing a lot from their intended diet. I use the word intended because target food would give the appearance of a type of food being specifically made for a specific species. All the way down to its nutritients, its food group, its availability.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Here you are avoiding the question again. Salt is a vital part of the diet of ALL life on this planet. They get salt in their diet. So it is very much on topic.

Your problem is you are to scared to address the question and so you respond as you have done here.
No I'm avoiding a subject that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

I fixed your problem, your just on the wrong thread. Here is a thread you should be active in about salt...
salt it can make you stupid




Nope. Stero has questioned your fantasy and you have responded in your usual dishonest fashion. He has provide you with a 'plethora' of links, all of which you deny, ignore or give an ignorant one line dismissal. Very you.

Now you make your silly claim of being profiled. Explain what you mean by that.
Well what it means colin, even though I know I have explained this to you over a long time ago, is that your not able to win a debate in a normal honest fashion so you resort to keeping a report card about the person to try to make them look bad. It's just an attituide that if you can't win in an honest way, maybe you can win a different way.
profiling

pro·fil·ingnoun /ˈprōˌfīliNG/ 


1.The recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people





Your thread is about showing proof that 'target food' proves evolution wrong. You seem very happy not to address that claim
You have clearly not read the past pages.




Salt is part of the staple diet of every living thing on this planet. The fact that you do not understand this vital ingredient of EVERY living thing and claim it has nothing to do with diet shows how little you understand the subject you claim to be an expert on.
Salt has nothing to do with Target food therefore I have directed any of that activity to the link I posted here on ATS about salt and how it can make you stupid.




You have been very quite on the subject of the rock otherwise known as salt but seeing as though every animal on this planet would die without it, then it must be part of the mythical 'target food'.

Can you explain why the tongue has areas that specifically identify salt?

Can you now explain why every animal on this planet would die if they get too much salt?

Can you explain why you had to be told the answer?
Yes, because your on the wrong thread.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Obviously tooth is a liar and a fabricator, because anything outside of "his" Ideas are ignored, "thats not what this thread is about" is a constant refrain he whines........


Sorry but "FOOD" cannot and will not prove evolution wrong. the way you are going about is like saying I can't fly so no one has ever flown..

Or I have not seen the Pyramids of Egypt in real life so they do not exist..


or better yet it'sthetooth is not a real person and is just a poorly constructed script file, all are a Valid as his arguments that man has no target food......

he has completely ignored my question about the double helix of DNA ( because it's not food) so it has no place in his thread...


this is more than just hubris it's a complete fallacy on HIS part.. I expect no answer from him, because I'm not "talking about food", but you see all the food you consume is in order to propagate your DNA, so in fact it IS about food, because food is energy, to procreate..

He knows he is lying and promoting ignorance, and it's sad that ATS has fallen this far, this thread should also be in skunk works
edit on 7-9-2012 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The wiki link you listed about salt as a rock was incorrect. Your trying to pass off this mineral as a rock, when wiki is specifically stateing that its in the soil.
Mineral lick

that animals eat soil to satisfy a craving for nutrient minerals





The logical fallacy is you stating that you are unaware or incapable of learning or incapable of finding something thus it is not whatever.
The fallacy is on you my friend, your the one claiming it exists, with no proof.




Your obviously a liar.
Proving that is a much better thing to do rather than just voice your opinion.




That is not how google works
I see, so your also a wiz at search engine optomization as well huh? Wow you must have all the brains.




I know you make things up.
You have never proven anything I have shared to be made up. Prove it.




Obviously you don't understand evolution since it is not based on assumptions. It is based on facts.
If evolution were actually based on 100% facts, religion would have died years ago and we wouldn't still be looking for missing links with fossils, or excuse me common ancestors.




I posted plenty of evidence available to those unafraid to check it out
I would be delighted to check out any aleged evidence but you don't share any. You have been completly wrong so far.




Again you are making up baloney. Feeding behaviors within a species are constrain by issues such as morphological structures and digestive methods. Experimenting with food is common. You first claimed it never happens and that is absurd. Filter feeders and scavengers and opportunistic feeders take whatever comes their way.
And within that there is still an identifiable diet, that probably even has target food.




FIrst it one thing and then another and now we are back to 242. Pye lied about that lab. It doesn't exist and some people were so stupid they believe him. Can you believe it tooth? Some people were so stupid they believe that this unnamed lab with unnamed staff reversed the real labs findings. Pye paints a fantasy and doofus wackos fall for it.
This is a better link for you to read...
pye It is to the best of my memory that lab 242 followed up with another test after trace genetics did.
Pye was smart enough to know that using old primer methods for DNA testing wasn't going to tell him what this skull was if in fact it was alien.




You lie. Then again that is what you do almost half the time.
You like to say that but you never prove it.




In y our pointless way you admit finally that the wikipedia is incomplete. Rocks and dirt are commonly eaten as I pointed out in links to minerals links. Maine has re-engineered its water runoff channels to stop moose car accidents. These deer were lured to roads and danger because of the easily eaten mineral deposits
I'm still not getting where you getting they eat rocks from. Keeping in mind once again that I'm specifically claiming no one eats rocks as a meal replacement.




That is a useless statement. The 2 lists are completely different. The more you lie that they are the same the more ludicrous and inept you appear.
The only thing that differed was that they specifically detailed twigs, lichen, and fungi, but as I have allready explained to the deer, I can understand why this would all appear to be the same food group.

But keep lying, and keep fooling yourself.




You're a liar since I have been able to good that word for years. All you are saying is that you are incompetent - nothing else.
And you obviously have a problem with accountability, Your the one that misspelled it.




Try reading the thread
I did and the only thing I found in links was to mineral licks, which has nothing to do with a species eating rocks. Your just like everyother evolutionist, you really try to stretch the goal posts on everything. Your persona matches with colin and I seriously wouldn't doubt if you two were one in the same. You both press on about subjects you failed to prove, and you both keep report cards, constantly profiling, and many other traits you share.




top topics



 
6
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join