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: 48
6
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





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.
Taget food has allready been proven. Through the realised diets of many species.




Evolution theory is based on facts, not fantasies.
Which is why its over 150 years old, had never been able to be proven, and here we still are.




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.
Are you SOS thats stuck on stupid? We have allready gone over this multiple times, and you just don't seem to get it. I found one section about the diet that was not as detailed as what you found but I'm satisfied to say that it was good enough.




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
Just keep lying, it makes you look real good.




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.
I wouldn't convince myself without some type of proof, oops looks like you allready have.




Target foods are a fantasy unrelated to the real world.
It just so happens to be something that your not able to disprove right?




Sorry I do not understand your comment. I used proper English and the name of the organization.
You didn't when you used forbs.




People die all of the time from eating vegetables and fruit. So what?
Whats this? Another opinion.




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.
Target food is an assumption based on diet facts.




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
Hell I'm not picky, I would take either from you at this point, but you sure are coming up short. Thats awsome you found some kids to answer your questions. Maybe you could join a thread that caters to kids, cause this isn't it.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.

Apparently you also need to learn the meaning of rock. The extent of your ignorance is unbounded.

I already gave you the definition of rock, but that didn't prevent you from making another nitwit mistake.

Here it is for you again.

a rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids.

en.wikipedia.org...


The fallacy is on you my friend, your the one claiming it exists, with no proof.

The fallacy is really about you telling lies such as you having provided evidence for target foods. You are a liar. You have provided nothing at all.


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

I appreciate you agreeing with me that you are a liar.


I see, so your also a wiz at search engine optomization as well huh? Wow you must have all the brains.

You misrepresent again. I never discussed SEO. Google does use tags to construct its search order.


You have never proven anything I have shared to be made up. Prove it.

You make things up. That is your MO: you lie, misrepresent, and make unbelievable wacky mistakes.

You still have not provided a single piece of evidence in support of target foods.


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.

Evolution says nothing about religion. The only ones seeing a connection are doofus creationists. Archaeologists on the other hand have shown that most of the bible never happened. For example, there is no evidence at all for exodus. Geologists have shown that Noah's flood never happened. Despite that religion does what it does well and science does what it does well.

Evolution is a well established theory with a mountain of facts supporting evolution. There is no doubt that evolution has happened. None at all. The question is how it happened. Evolution is a fact. How evolution happened is what is studied.


I would be delighted to check out any aleged evidence but you don't share any. You have been completly wrong so far.

You lie again.


And within that there is still an identifiable diet, that probably even has target food.

You are again arguing from ignorance.


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.

Pye is not a scientist. He is a compulsive liar like you.

Reading is definitely a problem for you. I asked for the lab and 454 is not the lab. It is a technique. According to your link that test was not done. Another epic fail on your part.


The lab reported that both the Starchild Skull and adult female had mtDNA consistent with Native American origin


The criticisms in the link show that Pye is a dolt.


You like to say that but you never prove it.

Again you lie. Is that normal behavior for you in middle school?


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.

Trying to move the goal posts because you are so very, very wrong. You stated that animals do not eat rocks and dirt. You are and have been quite ignorant about feeding behavior including your own consumption of rocks.


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.

Keep telling lies like you have been doing in post after post. No one believes you. No one supports you because you are a liar. The first list is for a grazer and the second for a browser.


And you obviously have a problem with accountability, Your the one that misspelled it.

I misspelled nothing. You are the one that is barely literate. I spelled forbs correctly. Your inability to use google is your failure and no one else's.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




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.

You need to stop telling more lies and read the thread.

The mineral lick does describe animals eating rocks. Of course you need to have a third grade level reading ability to comprehend that the article discusses animals eating rocks.

The expression is move the goal posts. Please learn English.
The word profiling is not the correct term. Please learn English.

You are a creationist at heart. You share many traits of creationists. You lie and you lie and you lie and you lie. You provide no evidence for your fantasies. You pretend others have offered no evidence. You misrepresent what others have posted. Wow. You could be one of those dopes that travels from congregation to congregation and spews lies about creationism.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Taget food has allready been proven. Through the realised diets of many species.

So what is "taget food"? First you provide zero evidence for target food and now you switch to taget food?


Which is why its over 150 years old, had never been able to be proven, and here we still are.

Evolution is a fact. Even the Greeks discussed evolution. Theories of evolution go back farther than 150 years. Lamarckian evolutionary theory is 200 years old. Darwinian evolution is well established and proven.


Are you SOS thats stuck on stupid? We have allready gone over this multiple times, and you just don't seem to get it. I found one section about the diet that was not as detailed as what you found but I'm satisfied to say that it was good enough.

You just don't seem to have the background to understand that fruits and twigs do not grow on grasses and forbs. It is not a matter of detail. The lists are completely different. The lists attract different types of feeders.

We know you a pathological liar and now we also know you are stuck on stupid.

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.


You didn't when you used forbs.

Being illiterate must be painful at times.

In response to the inane statement that milk must be processed for humans to consume I point out that for millennia people have consumed milk without processing. What sort of dope thinks that modern milk processing started milk consumption by humans? Then someone stuck on stupid points out that people have died from consuming raw milk. The stuck on stupid apparently does not know that the deaths are caused by contamination and not the milk itself.


Target food is an assumption based on diet facts.

There is honesty. Target foods is an assumption. Thank you for admitting it is your fantasy.

Now you can try to provide the first piece of evidence to support this fantasy.


Hell I'm not picky, I would take either from you at this point, but you sure are coming up short. Thats awsome you found some kids to answer your questions. Maybe you could join a thread that caters to kids, cause this isn't it.

The 4th graders were smarter than you. No surprise there.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
So here we are still working on the report card. It's getting longer.
The point of a report card is to assist the student in learning and to point out areas where they need to improve. Here we have some rather basic issues that need to be improved.

Good luck and let's get these issues resolved in the next day or so. Easy to do.

1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
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 no change
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
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 no change
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen no change
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. no change
16. F - for being close minded and unable to see the evidence. no change
17. F - not understanding the term incredulous
18. F - Not understanding the difference between precise and accurate
19. F - for stating Pye is a scientist
20. F - for believing Pye's lies
21. F - for being unable to differentiate between a lab and a lab test
22. F - ror not knowing the meaning of profiling
23. F - for not knowing what a rock is
24. F - for thinking that evolution theories are only 150 years old
25. F - for being unable to learn how to get a word definition out of google after beinghow to repeatedly
26. C - for thinking that evolution theories are at odds with religion
Most dunderhead creationists think this is true as well.
27.

Unanswered questions from others
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IF TARGET FOOD EXISTS, HOW DOES THIS DISPROVE EVOLUTION?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

How can you prove a point by using arguments based on same?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tooth, are you aware that when you refer to people as incredulous, its not an insult?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tooth, Still waiting on why the shape of DNA is the same in MAN, apes, chimps cats and fish..kinda blows the whole off planet theory.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

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, 8 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Apparently you also need to learn the meaning of rock. The extent of your ignorance is unbounded.

I already gave you the definition of rock, but that didn't prevent you from making another nitwit mistake.

Here it is for you again.

a rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids.

en.wikipedia.org...
And this is just another classic example of how you evolutionists like to stretch the goal posts on anything to try to fit your agenda. There is a big difference between saying that animals use mineral licks, and saying that they eat rocks.

See how much of a liar you are.




The fallacy is really about you telling lies such as you having provided evidence for target foods. You are a liar. You have provided nothing at all.
Prove it!




You misrepresent again. I never discussed SEO. Google does use tags to construct its search order
You just lied again, first you said google doesn't use tags.




You make things up. That is your MO: you lie, misrepresent, and make unbelievable wacky mistakes.

You still have not provided a single piece of evidence in support of target foods.
Just because you werent awake in class doesn't mean it didnt happen.




Evolution says nothing about religion. The only ones seeing a connection are doofus creationists. Archaeologists on the other hand have shown that most of the bible never happened. For example, there is no evidence at all for exodus. Geologists have shown that Noah's flood never happened. Despite that religion does what it does well and science does what it does well.

Evolution is a well established theory with a mountain of facts supporting evolution. There is no doubt that evolution has happened. None at all. The question is how it happened. Evolution is a fact. How evolution happened is what is studied.
There has never been any evidence that evolution is real. The biggest fact about evolution is specieation. Speciation has only ever been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria and viruses, which is a far cry from having a common ancestor with apes.




You lie again.


And within that there is still an identifiable diet, that probably even has target food.

You are again arguing from ignorance.
Prove it.




Pye is not a scientist. He is a compulsive liar like you.

Reading is definitely a problem for you. I asked for the lab and 454 is not the lab. It is a technique. According to your link that test was not done. Another epic fail on your part.
It was 242 and no that event had no taken place yet because that site is older. Again you will have to do your own research, and if your going to talk trash about someone you really should anyhow, and I'm not going to hold your hand through it.




The criticisms in the link show that Pye is a dolt.
I looked back, and never found any links you claim about pye.




Again you lie. Is that normal behavior for you in middle school?
I no longer attend school but you are the one so proud that 2nd and 3rd grade kids were able to answer your questions.




Trying to move the goal posts because you are so very, very wrong. You stated that animals do not eat rocks and dirt. You are and have been quite ignorant about feeding behavior including your own consumption of rocks.
You sound so much like an idiot, its not the same thing for an animal to eat soil called a mineral lick as the statement of eating rocks.




Keep telling lies like you have been doing in post after post. No one believes you. No one supports you because you are a liar. The first list is for a grazer and the second for a browser.
Both are close enough to be seen as part of the herbivore catagory, so I don't care, thats what I said and I still believe that.



I misspelled nothing. You are the one that is barely literate. I spelled forbs correctly. Your inability to use google is your failure and no one else's.
Oh trust me, you misspelled. Making a word plural when its not listed that way in definition is just to purposely confuse. Your a BAD PERSON.




You need to stop telling more lies and read the thread.

The mineral lick does describe animals eating rocks. Of course you need to have a third grade level reading ability to comprehend that the article discusses animals eating rocks.

The expression is move the goal posts. Please learn English.
The word profiling is not the correct term. Please learn English.

You are a creationist at heart. You share many traits of creationists. You lie and you lie and you lie and you lie. You provide no evidence for your fantasies. You pretend others have offered no evidence. You misrep



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





You need to stop telling more lies and read the thread.

The mineral lick does describe animals eating rocks. Of course you need to have a third grade level reading ability to comprehend that the article discusses animals eating rocks.

The expression is move the goal posts. Please learn English.
The word profiling is not the correct term. Please learn English.

You are a creationist at heart. You share many traits of creationists. You lie and you lie and you lie and you lie. You provide no evidence for your fantasies. You pretend others have offered no evidence. You misrepresent what others have posted. Wow. You could be one of those dopes that travels from congregation to congregation and spews lies about creationism.
And you lie again as the word rock doesn't even appear in the article.
YOUR A BAD PERSON.




So what is "taget food"? First you provide zero evidence for target food and now you switch to taget food?
The definition of Target Food is in the OP, your welcome to read it. As far as proof, its all in the thread.




Evolution is a fact. Even the Greeks discussed evolution. Theories of evolution go back farther than 150 years. Lamarckian evolutionary theory is 200 years old. Darwinian evolution is well established and proven
People believe in evolution because they fall for the poorly constructed theories and hypothesis. IMO it remindes me a lot of a Rube Goldberg machine with the exception that those sometimes work.




You just don't seem to have the background to understand that fruits and twigs do not grow on grasses and forbs. It is not a matter of detail. The lists are completely different. The lists attract different types of feeders.
You lack insight and wisdom, the deer doesn't care, and as far as he is concearned, they are all plants.




We know you a pathological liar and now we also know you are stuck on stupid.

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.
If diets were guesses and often incomplete then they would be announced as such, but they are not, so you are WRONG.

Liar.




Being illiterate must be painful at times.

In response to the inane statement that milk must be processed for humans to consume I point out that for millennia people have consumed milk without processing. What sort of dope thinks that modern milk processing started milk consumption by humans? Then someone stuck on stupid points out that people have died from consuming raw milk. The stuck on stupid apparently does not know that the deaths are caused by contamination and not the milk itself.
And the only way to decontaminate the milk is to process it. Looks like you finally got one rigth. Your sitll wrong.




There is honesty. Target foods is an assumption. Thank you for admitting it is your fantasy.

Now you can try to provide the first piece of evidence to support this fantasy.
Those are held in the OP, which your welcome to read.




The 4th graders were smarter than you. No surprise there.
I don't work with kids sorry, or are you saying thats why you keep repeating yourself, because you are in fact a 4th grader?




So here we are still working on the report card. It's getting longer.
The point of a report card is to assist the student in learning and to point out areas where they need to improve. Here we have some rather basic issues that need to be improved.

Good luck and let's get these issues resolved in the next day or so. Easy to do.

1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
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 no change
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
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 no change
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen no change
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. no change
16. F - for b



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


If you like grading people, you should seriously take a look at yourself, your frequently wrong, don't understand things even when they are explained to you, and you don't believe anything even when its supported with proof.

This isn't a thread about salt, or report cards, its a thread about target food. I'm sorry that I don't fall into your trap on going off the subject, but when you do finally get a question about the subject of this thread, you are welcome to share it. Untill then there is a better thread to share your other interests, right here on ATS.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And this is just another classic example of how you evolutionists like to stretch the goal posts on anything to try to fit your agenda. There is a big difference between saying that animals use mineral licks, and saying that they eat rocks.

See how much of a liar you are.

Learn English. The expression is move the goal posts.
Evolutionists do not do that. It is the creationists and liars like Pye that so that.

An animal uses a mineral lick by eating the rocks to obtain their needed minerals.

You have provided not a thing to support target foods. You are a liar when you say you have.


Google does use tags to construct its search order

Thank you. I mistyped. I meant to type Google does NOT use tags to construct its search order. Thanks for bringing this mistake on my part to my attention. First mistake you've drawn my attention to.


Just because you werent awake in class doesn't mean it didnt happen.

Unlike you I read the thread. You have provided zero evidence.


There has never been any evidence that evolution is real. The biggest fact about evolution is specieation. Speciation has only ever been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria and viruses, which is a far cry from having a common ancestor with apes.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is well established.

Speciation has been observed in all living life forms.
en.wikipedia.org...

The debate is over the theories explaining how this happening, not if it happened.


It was 242 and no that event had no taken place yet because that site is older. Again you will have to do your own research, and if your going to talk trash about someone you really should anyhow, and I'm not going to hold your hand through it.

So the lab is called 242? I asked for the name of the lab and the name of the PI and you answer 424 or 242. And then you whine like a baby because you are not able to support the lies of Pye. No surprise that you whine and no surprise that Pye lied about later results.


I looked back, and never found any links you claim about pye.

Just like your unable to find the meaning of forbs with google you are incompetent in finding something in this thread.


I no longer attend school but you are the one so proud that 2nd and 3rd grade kids were able to answer your questions.

They are much smarter than you are and probably ever will be unless you make the effort to learn.


You sound so much like an idiot, its not the same thing for an animal to eat soil called a mineral lick as the statement of eating rocks.

You sound like an idiot saying that animals using their tongue to ingest food is not eating. Many animals use their lips as well. Some just just scoop up the material with their teeth.


Both are close enough to be seen as part of the herbivore catagory, so I don't care, thats what I said and I still believe that.

Spoken like a complete fool. The two lists are completely different and no amount of babyish whining changes that.


Oh trust me, you misspelled. Making a word plural when its not listed that way in definition is just to purposely confuse.

Now you are a liar again. The word was in definition and another poster showed that you lied then and you lie again.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And you lie again as the word rock doesn't even appear in the article.

It is too bad that you are so uneducated, but from your constant telling of lies maybe you prefer to be that way. So learn something if you can.

Salt is a rock. The animals eat salt. Thus the animals eat rock.


The definition of Target Food is in the OP, your welcome to read it. As far as proof, its all in the thread.

The definition is in the OP. I read it and laughed out loud. No evidence let alone proof has been offered ever in thread. You really need to learn the difference between proof and evidence.


People believe in evolution because they fall for the poorly constructed theories and hypothesis.

People believe in evolution because it is a fact. The fact of evolution has been known for hundreds of years.


You lack insight and wisdom, the deer doesn't care, and as far as he is concearned, they are all plants.

Actually the wikipedia article on deer states that they do care. You should try reading the article sometime.


If diets were guesses and often incomplete then they would be announced as such, but they are not, so you are WRONG.

That is about the dumbest statement in the thread. The diets are lists. It never states that they are complete does it. So you are wrong.


And the only way to decontaminate the milk is to process it. Looks like you finally got one rigth. Your sitll wrong. /quote]
You were wrong when you stated that milk is processed so that humans can consume it. Raw milk can be consumed by humans. It is consumed raw by people all over the world today. A good example is the Maasai. Again you are wrong and clueless.
en.wikipedia.org...


Those are held in the OP, which your welcome to read.

You lie again. There is no evidence for this fantasy in the OP or elsewhere in the thread.


I don't work with kids sorry, or are you saying thats why you keep repeating yourself, because you are in fact a 4th grader?

4th graders are smarter than you by a lot. It must be very sad to be as uneducated as you are, but that happens when you refer telling lies to learning.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
So here we are still working on the report card. It's getting longer.
The point of a report card is to assist the student in learning and to point out areas where they need to improve. Here we have some rather basic issues that need to be improved.

Good luck and let's get these issues resolved in the next day or so. Easy to do.

1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
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 no change
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
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 no change
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen no change
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. no change
16. F - for being close minded and unable to see the evidence. no change
17. F - not understanding the term incredulous no change
18. F - Not understanding the difference between precise and accurate no change
19. F - for stating Pye is a scientist no change
20. F - for believing Pye's lies no change
21. F - for being unable to differentiate between a lab and a lab test no change
22. F - ror not knowing the meaning of profiling no change
23. F - for not knowing what a rock is no change
24. F - for thinking that evolution theories are only 150 years old no change
25. F - for being unable to learn how to get a word definition out of google after beinghow to repeatedly no change
26. C - for thinking that evolution theories are at odds with religion no change
27. F - for not understanding the difference between evolution the fact and the theories that explain the fact of evolution
28. F -

Unanswered questions from others
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IF TARGET FOOD EXISTS, HOW DOES THIS DISPROVE EVOLUTION?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

How can you prove a point by using arguments based on same?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tooth, are you aware that when you refer to people as incredulous, its not an insult?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tooth, Still waiting on why the shape of DNA is the same in MAN, apes, chimps cats and fish..kinda blows the whole off planet theory.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

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, 8 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Still waiting for the first piece of evidence in support of the fantasy called target foods.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No I'm avoiding a subject that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
So you are avoiding the subject. First honest reply you have made in pages.

So if salt, a vital mineral in the diet of ALL life is not on topic then your constant bleating on milk is also not on topic because calcium is also a mineral and a rock. So you will never mention milk again then.


I fixed your problem, your just on the wrong thread. Here is a thread you should be active in about salt...
Nope. You just highlighted your total ignorance and desperate lack of education.

Salt - The white gold of planet Earth

I doubt the above link has fixed your problem, you have demonstrated it is too far gone to be fixed.


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.
So the broken link trick, how hilarious.

In the above you just profiled me and incorrectly at that. Stereo has listed a report card I just stated I believe he has scored you too high. How very dare you.



You have clearly not read the past pages.
You know that not to be true so again you have felt the need to be dishonest.


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 need to cut down your salt intake


So here is an ideal way to show what is and is not target food. ALL life on this planet needs salt. You say salt is not part of 'target food' so the primary proof of if an organism is from this planet is to find those that do not require salt in their diet because they are the ones that are 'not from here'.

Humans need a daily intake of salt, so do anteaters ergo we are from here using your criteria.


Yes, because your on the wrong thread.
See above then answer below:

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, 8 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Taget food has allready been proven. Through the realised diets of many species.
Diets that you say do not contain salt. List those species.


Target food is an assumption based on diet facts.
If they are facts then you should be able to show, with links that species with target food are those whose diet does NOT contain salt. Do that.


Hell I'm not picky, I would take either from you at this point, but you sure are coming up short. Thats awsome you found some kids to answer your questions. Maybe you could join a thread that caters to kids, cause this isn't it.
Who are you trying to kid? You're 8 - 12 at best. (get a spell checker)





edit on 8-9-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Learn English. The expression is move the goal posts.
Evolutionists do not do that. It is the creationists and liars like Pye that so that.
I don't know, I see you doing it a lot, just like colin does.




An animal uses a mineral lick by eating the rocks to obtain their needed minerals.

You have provided not a thing to support target foods. You are a liar when you say you have.
Which is NOT the same thing as eating rocks, you lied again. Even the wiki about it never used the word rock even once.




Thank you. I mistyped. I meant to type Google does NOT use tags to construct its search order. Thanks for bringing this mistake on my part to my attention. First mistake you've drawn my attention to
You typed the same thing.




Unlike you I read the thread. You have provided zero evidence.
Then you should go back and read it until you understand it.




Evolution is a fact. Evolution is well established.

Speciation has been observed in all living life forms.
en.wikipedia.org...

The debate is over the theories explaining how this happening, not if it happened.
The fact that they dont know how this happened is proof that it has not been proven. As I stated earlier on colins thread, ADHD was witnessed changing our genes, I also provided a link proving this. Some genes were being multiplied and some were being erased. Since this was newley found, that means that prior to this discovery these changes would have been understood as being evolution at work. As you can see this is false, and I believe there is an explanation for all changes that have occured, they just haven't figured it out yet so resort to accepting evolution as the reason.




So the lab is called 242? I asked for the name of the lab and the name of the PI and you answer 424 or 242. And then you whine like a baby because you are not able to support the lies of Pye. No surprise that you whine and no surprise that Pye lied about later results.
No its because this thread isn't about Pye and you trying to prove him wrong, its about target food.




Just like your unable to find the meaning of forbs with google you are incompetent in finding something in this thread.
If google doesn't offer it, thats not my fault.




They are much smarter than you are and probably ever will be unless you make the effort to learn.
Well this explains why you are so obstinate, you just don't get the point and are always reasking or restating the same things. Are you sure you don't have a learning dissability?




You sound like an idiot saying that animals using their tongue to ingest food is not eating. Many animals use their lips as well. Some just just scoop up the material with their teeth.
Eating rocks, and licking minerals are two very different things.




Spoken like a complete fool. The two lists are completely different and no amount of babyish whining changes that.
And you would be correct from the understanding we have of seperating life. I'm looking at it from the deers perspective. You lack insight.




Now you are a liar again. The word was in definition and another poster showed that you lied then and you lie again.
Sorry you are wrong again, google had no match for either word singular or plural.




It is too bad that you are so uneducated, but from your constant telling of lies maybe you prefer to be that way. So learn something if you can.

Salt is a rock. The animals eat salt. Thus the animals eat rock.
Well salt can be in rock form but it doesn't have to be. So you lied again.



The definition is in the OP. I read it and laughed out loud. No evidence let alone proof has been offered ever in thread. You really need to learn the difference between proof and evidence.
The fact that only intelligence can be responsible for programming species to know what to eat is the obvious proof.




People believe in evolution because it is a fact. The fact of evolution has been known for hundreds of years.
No people believe in evolution because they want an explanation without having to rely on religion.

The only thing that evolution has done, is found a way to overwright religion, all the way down to offering an explanation of creation without calling it creation, but it still is.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Actually the wikipedia article on deer states that they do care. You should try reading the article sometime.
I did, the deer obviously doesn't care as he has a scatterd diet within a forseeable group.




That is about the dumbest statement in the thread. The diets are lists. It never states that they are complete does it. So you are wrong.
It never states they are incomplete, so you are wrong for assuming.




Still waiting for the first piece of evidence in support of the fantasy called target foods.
There is lots of proof in the thread.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So you are avoiding the subject. First honest reply you have made in pages.
I have no interest in subjects not related to target food.




So if salt, a vital mineral in the diet of ALL life is not on topic then your constant bleating on milk is also not on topic because calcium is also a mineral and a rock. So you will never mention milk again then.
Milk is an obvious man made supplement.




Nope. You just highlighted your total ignorance and desperate lack of education.

Salt - The white gold of planet Earth

I doubt the above link has fixed your problem, you have demonstrated it is too far gone to be fixed
Since salt seems to be your speciality, there is a better ATS thread for you.



So the broken link trick, how hilarious.

In the above you just profiled me and incorrectly at that. Stereo has listed a report card I just stated I believe he has scored you too high. How very dare you
You have issued your own example of a report card in the past.




You know that not to be true so again you have felt the need to be dishonest.
There is no need to be dishonest.




You need to cut down your salt intake

So here is an ideal way to show what is and is not target food. ALL life on this planet needs salt. You say salt is not part of 'target food' so the primary proof of if an organism is from this planet is to find those that do not require salt in their diet because they are the ones that are 'not from here'.

Humans need a daily intake of salt, so do anteaters ergo we are from here using your criteria.
All species take some form of salt. Even in sea water there is salt. It's so common that it doesn't prove who is from here or not.




See above then answer below:

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?
I could but I choose not to as they have nothing to do with target food.




Diets that you say do not contain salt. List those species.
Again I'm only interested in the subject of target food.




If they are facts then you should be able to show, with links that species with target food are those whose diet does NOT contain salt. Do that.
Perhaps I should start a new thread about salt.



Who are you trying to kid? You're 8 - 12 at best. (get a spell checker)
I prefer the challenge of spelling.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
thank you tooth...you made me smile. This is the best toothism in about 20 pages:




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.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





thank you tooth...you made me smile. This is the best toothism in about 20 pages:
Its a fact not a toothism.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No I'm avoiding a subject that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

So you are avoiding the subject. First honest reply you have made in pages

I have no interest in subjects not related to target food.
Salt is part of any healthy diet. Too little or too much causes a wide range of serious illnesses. The fact you do not consider it part of your fantasy food shows how little research you have done. No wonder you cannot support your claims with any evidence at all.


Milk is an obvious man made supplement.
The calcium it contains is not man made. You have ranted over many pages about calcium but because it does not fit your fantasy sodium is ruled out. Mllk also contains sodium (salt).BTW.

So if you rule out salt then you rule out milk. If you still choose to ignore the salt content of any diet you also rule out target food as being anything more than a childish fantasy.



Since salt seems to be your speciality, there is a better ATS thread for you.
Dont worry about me and other threads. I have asked you these questions in THIS thread and you have still avoided giving any answer other than your ignorant denial. Worry about that.


You have issued your own example of a report card in the past.
I listed the inconsistancies of your argument. Not at all like a report card.

1. Target food is food that has all the needs of the organism contained.
2 Target food may be one food or it may be many different foods
(Numbers 1 - 2 is no different to non target food then)
3. Not having a target food means you are definitely not from here.
4. Having a target food does not automatically mean you are from here
5. An organisms target food may have become extinct
(#3 directly contradicts #5 and #5 cannot be confirmed as you have ruled the fossil record out.

6. You claim that calcium (a mineral) is an important factor in target food
7. You state salt (sodium a mineral) has nothing to do with target food
(Sodium is even more important than calcium on a daily basis but you fail to explain why calcium is in and sodium is out). The obvious answer is you don’t have a clue.
8. You claim a target food should take no effort to get but cannot explain if target food is still target food if it is later cultivated to maintain supplies.

There are many more but you will avoid explaining these inconsistencies as you always do.


All species take some form of salt. Even in sea water there is salt. It's so common that it doesn't prove who is from here or not.
Calcium is very common as well (even in sea water) but you seem to give that some importance while ignoring salt. Further, all species on this planet have salt as a dietary need. You claim salt has nothing to do with target food ergo only those creatures that do not have salt in their diet can have a target food and so must not be from here.


I could but I choose not to as they have nothing to do with target food.
Really!!! the tongue and taste buds have nothing to do with food target or otherwise? Is that your claim?

Really!!! The fact that too little or too much salt in food results in serious health conditions and even death? That has nothing to do with a healthy diet which you claim target food to be? Really?

The truth is you cannot answer those questions and if you tried target food is even further disproved. You claim you want people to disprove it and then reject questions that do just that. The questions stand:

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?


Diets that you say do not contain salt. List those species

Again I'm only interested in the subject of target food.
Nope. You are only interested in maintaining your silly fantasy.


If they are facts then you should be able to show, with links that species with target food are those whose diet does NOT contain salt. Do that.

Perhaps I should start a new thread about salt.
Perhaps you should answer the questions you are asked about target food.


Who are you trying to kid? You're 8 - 12 at best. (get a spell checker)

I prefer the challenge of spelling.
And you do find it challenging and fail to rise to that challenge far to often. Just like you fail to answer and address the questions you are asked on target food.

Edit: From what you claim is your historical document:

Job said, 'The ear tests the words it hears just as the mouth distinguishes between foods.'
From the bible

The bible on salt

Salt is a necessity of life and was a mineral that was used since ancient times in many cultures as a seasoning, a preservative, a disinfectant, a component of ceremonial offerings, and as a unit of exchange. The Bible contains numerous references to salt. In various contexts, it is used metaphorically to signify permanence, loyalty, durability, fidelity, usefulness, value, and purification.
The bible thinks both the tongue and salt play a vital role in a diet


edit on 8-9-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join