Science against evolution

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your link just errors, no big shocker. I was still able to find out some things about the theory you are quoting however, only because you were willing to list its name on the link.
Told you that you would not read it. Your pathetic excuses not accepted as there are many places beside the link I supplied you could have checked.


Of course you must first know that this theory was written by an evolutionist, according to the wiki on it.
First you stated regarding Pye that you do not believe wiki to be a reliable source. Second if you do not accept the information because it was written by an evolutionist then you cannot offer anything from the bible which was written by a creationist. It is called being even handed.

You also should not be accepting unsupported nonsense from the well known creationist Pye.


The problem with this theory right off the top is that it contradicts what ever diet claims. For example here they say that
Nope. It contradicts what you claim


Now here you can see the contradiction...
Nope. What I see is you do not understand 'Optimal Foraging' either. Add it to the list of things you refuse to understand.

Your link to the squirrel has been shown to prove your nonsense target food wrong every time you provide it. The obvious fact that you cannot read and understand what you link to is your problem not mine.


Your opinion didn't prove it.
You didn’t read or understand the evidence, that does not mean I did not provide it. It means it is beyond your ability to understand what you read.


Then every diet should reflect what your claiming, but they are claiming the opposite.
As already stated you do not have the ability to comprehend the information presented to you.

Optimal Foraging is the balance of energy in Vs risk.


We know, by a concise diet what everything on this planet eats, and even if we don't, they still have a diet.
Spoken as usual from your personal ignorance


Nothing on this planet just eats random food or things that aren't food unless they are starving.
Nothing on this planet eats random food even if they are starving. See 'Optimal Foraging'


You can keep claiming that all you want, I'm just waiting for some proof.
You only want proof that supports you and in the case of target food there is none which is why you have never supplied any.


Your the only one coming up empty handed, all I have asked for is proof that an experimental diet exists and all you can give me is a theory on it, put your money where your mouth is and prove it, where is the diets???
You lost your bet. See 'Optimal Foraging'.


And you had a whole thread to prove it wrong which you also couldnt do.
You made the claim 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. You offered no proof and everyone that took part asked you many times to do so.

You were given stacks of information showing how wrong you are and as here you refused to accept it. You failed 100% and looked like a spoilt child in the process and chose to remain ignorant.


It's inaccurate because it does not reflect the actual results of the test presented by Pye, but rather the opinion of someone woking at wiki, and Pye explains all this.
The results were not presented in any meaningful way as you have had explained many times but refuse to understand. The point is you are cherry picking again what you want to believe and what you refuse to understand. You continually display ‘Optimal Ignorance’


Your inability to read and learn is not his fail.
You are demonstrating your reflected guilt again. You have many more problems than just not being able to back up any nonsense claims you make.

edit on 23-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
Game changer everyone!!!

300 million yr old machinery found !!!!


The Voice of Russia and other Russian sources are reporting that a 300 million year old piece of aluminum machinery has been found in Vladivostok. Experts say a gear rail appears to be manufactured and not the result of natural forces.

According to Yulia Zamanskaya, when a resident of Vladivostok was lighting the fire during a cold winter evening, he found a rail-shaped metal detail which was pressed in one of the pieces of coal that the man used to heat his home. Mesmerized by his discovery, the responsible citizen decided to seek help from the scientists of Primorye region. After the metal object was studied by the leading experts the man was shocked to learn about the assumed age of his discovery. The metal detail was supposedly 300 million years old and yet the scientists suggest that it was not created by nature but was rather manufactured by someone. The question of who might have made an aluminum gear in the dawn of time remains unanswered.





You will find a thread on this in HOAX

So no game changer there.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by Connector
Game changer everyone!!!

300 million yr old machinery found !!!!


The Voice of Russia and other Russian sources are reporting that a 300 million year old piece of aluminum machinery has been found in Vladivostok. Experts say a gear rail appears to be manufactured and not the result of natural forces.

According to Yulia Zamanskaya, when a resident of Vladivostok was lighting the fire during a cold winter evening, he found a rail-shaped metal detail which was pressed in one of the pieces of coal that the man used to heat his home. Mesmerized by his discovery, the responsible citizen decided to seek help from the scientists of Primorye region. After the metal object was studied by the leading experts the man was shocked to learn about the assumed age of his discovery. The metal detail was supposedly 300 million years old and yet the scientists suggest that it was not created by nature but was rather manufactured by someone. The question of who might have made an aluminum gear in the dawn of time remains unanswered.





You will find a thread on this in HOAX

So no game changer there.


Guess there is so much insanity in this thread that sarcasm / humor is lost. Thought the pic of "Dr.Evil" might give it away



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Your completely wrong - as always. Sodom and Gomorrah are fictional cities mentioned only in the bible. Some places might be real, but using a few real places does not make the rest of the bible non-fiction. Here is what you wrote:
You don't need to quote me, I know darn good and well what I wrote. I'm sorry but I'm not finding anything in the bible that explains Sodom and Gomorrah to be a fictional city, in fact I'm not seeing anything in the bible that explains any part of the book to be fiction. So are you assuming again? Shame on you, falling back on your old evolutionists tactics, just because assuming put that theory together doesn't mean it was used for intervention.




That's not true. There is no place called Sodom or Gomorrah.
Just because it was bombed and can't be found any longer isn't proof it never existed. You need to quit assuming.




You appear to making an argument from personal ignorance. You are wrong because deer experiment constantly in out area at ALL times of the year. Your personal lack of knowledge about animals and what they feed on is readily apparent. Deer purposely eat rocks. Been doing that for ever. It has nothign to do with starvation.
Well me using the claim about eating rocks being total starvation was just a matter of example. However, if you find that deer eat rocks all the time, then it is possible that rocks are a normal part of their diet, either way I'm still correct.




Evidence showing bible is fiction already posted.
I'm not aware of anyone proving the bible to be fiction, can I ask was this your doing or did you have help?




Evidence showing you completely wrong already posted.
I'm sorry but I find no evidence that magic has anything to do with the supernatural, and I have already provided links proving that to be the case.




You posted the definition showing you are wrong.
I surly would not have posted something that would prove me wrong, are you confused with something you perhaps posted?




You posted the definition showing you are wrong.
Then you must be suffering from selective amnesia because none of the link I have provided prove me to be wrong.




Straw man argument.
No I think its more that you don't know how to read.




One, that is wrong. Two, has nothing to do with survival during extinctions.
Sure it does, a species can't go extinct from being eaten if its at the top of the food chain.




Each and every post of yours shows you do not have any inkling about the meaning of evolution as used in science.
Most of the links have been sent to me by other ATS members.




Pye has not. You are telling a lie.
The site is new, so I know your lying.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





300 million yr old machinery found !!!!
Everyone knows that visitors from other worlds once occupied our planet, is this ground breaking news to you? Who do you think built the pryamids?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 
Sorry maye I thought it was a pic of an excited tooth



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I haven't frequented this forum in about 6 months and tooth is still going on about "target food"? Would I be right in assuming that not a single reference to "target food" has been found outside of tooth's imagination yet?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Obviously you know nothing about the subject.
I don't have to, all of the proof and evidence is allready listed in all of the diets you can look up and the details. The fact is animals don't experiment with food unless they are starving. Starving means they have no food at all in case your not getting this. There is obvious proof that choices are automatically made as a species, as a whole, all of the time. What this means in case you can't grasp your one line come backs around this, is that first of all you are wrong. Species appear to know what they are suppose to be eating, and they don't experiment to learn of this. Second they are all choosing the same choices. This means that intelligence was shared with them so that they would know what to eat, as they don't have cell phones to tell each other what to eat, and they don't hold meetings. In most cases they don't even teach their young how to eat. So again, its preprogrammed, which means there must be a programmer of some sort.




I wrote that target foods is a failed idea and you agreed with me. Nice.
No you didn't, you said they have no target food, and this was correct.




Again you demonstrate that you know nothing at all about the meaning of evolution.
Well excuse me but it appears to be you that has more questions that answers. You are unable to provide proof that I share a common ancestor with apes. Your unable to prove that a species actually can change into another species instead of this joke of an idea you call specieation. Your also unable to provide any proof that all of any changes are part of this grand sceme called evolution. If you ask me, you just assume a lot and have no answers here.




Evidence already posted.
Posting info about speciation is not proof that a species can change into another species, your fooling yourself and in the process trying to dumb down fellow ATS members.




You need to go back and read.
Aside from wiki, Pye has never had anyone challenge his work so you are obviously wrong.




Again showing that you need to take a basic course in biology.
Relying on relative isolation to determine if something is a different species is just as lame as it gets. I allready proved earler that we have very good reason and proof of why we can't rely on such rubbish. We have non matching species that are able to sucessfully breed with one another, like the horse and the donkey, and the wolf and the dog, and the cat and the rabbit. We also have same species life that is not able to breed. Like my neighbor is unable to get pregnant and doctors have checked out her husband and everything about her and have no answers. This obviously is not proof that she has speciated. Evolutionists would obviously assume otherwise.

That has got to be the lamest thing I have ever heard for figuring out if a species has changed.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I'm sorry but I find no evidence that magic has anything to do with the supernatural, and I have already provided links proving that to be the case.
That is yet another example of you refusing to see anything that goes against your homemade religion. Not only have you had all this explained many times over it also only takes a 2 second search to show yet again how wrong you are

Man Myth & Magic (encyclopaedia)


Man, Myth & Magic is an encyclopaedia of the supernatural, including magic, mythology and religion. .


Complied I believe by many that has spent more than 30 years studying the supernatural. So if they equate the supernatural with magic, mythology and religion explain why you don’t

BTW they are not evolutionists so you have no reason to doubt them

And here is a link that I got from the same 2 second search

Magic (paranormal)


Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation, ceremony, ritual, the casting of spells or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
I haven't frequented this forum in about 6 months and tooth is still going on about "target food"? Would I be right in assuming that not a single reference to "target food" has been found outside of tooth's imagination yet?
You would correct but he has refined it in that time.

He has added 3 phases of starvation which he also cant provide evidence for.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Told you that you would not read it. Your pathetic excuses not accepted as there are many places beside the link I supplied you could have checked.
So you purposly posted a bogus link?




First you stated regarding Pye that you do not believe wiki to be a reliable source. Second if you do not accept the information because it was written by an evolutionist then you cannot offer anything from the bible which was written by a creationist. It is called being even handed.

You also should not be accepting unsupported nonsense from the well known creationist Pye.
No you took it out of context, what I said was the post by wiki regarding star child is a false page. It's not written by Pye and wiki refuses to take it down even though Pye is not authorizing its contents.




Nope. It contradicts what you claim
And my claim is what every diet explains, so now what





Nope. What I see is you do not understand 'Optimal Foraging' either. Add it to the list of things you refuse to understand.

Your link to the squirrel has been shown to prove your nonsense target food wrong every time you provide it. The obvious fact that you cannot read and understand what you link to is your problem not mine.
It's clear that you don't understand what Target food is or how it works. A diet as for example will not and cannot prove target food to be wrong. And if you think it can, then it just goes to show your lack of understanding what it is and how it works.




You didn’t read or understand the evidence, that does not mean I did not provide it. It means it is beyond your ability to understand what you read.
Either way, your opinion is always appreciated, but its still just an opinion and doesn't prove anything.




As already stated you do not have the ability to comprehend the information presented to you.

Optimal Foraging is the balance of energy in Vs risk.
I understand the theory, but it contradicts every diet ever written.




Spoken as usual from your personal ignorance
OFT is obviously false, there is no way it could be possible with species having an afixed diet. Don't take my word for it, look up the diet of any species and you will find we have afixed one. Random foraging is never mentioned in any of them.




Nothing on this planet eats random food even if they are starving. See 'Optimal Foraging'
Sure but what species exactly does OFT refer to? They are not being specific and there is no way you can prove it based on that. And why does all of the diets looked up never talk about random foraging? Because its false.




You only want proof that supports you and in the case of target food there is none which is why you have never supplied any.
Every diet I have postet supports the phase of hunger and abalone supports target food, so again your wrong.




You lost your bet. See 'Optimal Foraging'.
I asked for diets to prove me wrong, and you come up with a theory, nice try by no. So I guess the eating habbit of a lion or tiger is false too then as they eat all the meat and don't leave any to bare.




You made the claim 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. You offered no proof and everyone that took part asked you many times to do so.

It does, you can look up the eating habbits of any species and you can see there is no evolutionary connection there.




You were given stacks of information showing how wrong you are and as here you refused to accept it. You failed 100% and looked like a spoilt child in the process and chose to remain ignorant
There is no stacks of information the prove Target Food false, there is nothing that proves it wrong. If target food is wrong then so must all of the diets that are listed.




The results were not presented in any meaningful way as you have had explained many times but refuse to understand. The point is you are cherry picking again what you want to believe and what you refuse to understand. You continually display ‘Optimal Ignorance’
That is a comment from prejudice. Pye was quick to jump on the opportunity to use DNA to examine the skull but he had no idea at the time that the test was flawed from the start.




You are demonstrating your reflected guilt again. You have many more problems than just not being able to back up any nonsense claims you make.
Your inability to read has nothing to do with my problems.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Target food has evolved since you were last on.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Ah its you two guys
... what happened to the original thread... that was like 1000s of posts hahaha.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Target food has evolved since you were last on.

Because of environmental pressures or...?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So you purposly posted a bogus link?
tooth you are such a predictable child. I had no doubt you would refuse to read the link I supplied because it directly showed you wrong citing the mule deer doing what you claimed to be impossible.

Speaking of which I suggested you post a link to a definition of natural that does work as you claimed they all say the same thing. You still have not


No you took it out of context, what I said was the post by wiki regarding star child is a false page.
I know how you struggle with understanding context but above is not what you wrote


That article was altered by wiki, thats not Pye's work. I don't know how I can make this any more clearer. The editor at wiki took it upon them self to assume the skull is 100% based on the fact that the original primer tests did test positive for human.
It is a wiki page. The same as the other ones you claim to be solid evidence. So I took nothing out of context.



And my claim is what every diet explains, so now what
Go on what does every diet explain. Entertain me.


It's clear that you don't understand what Target food is or how it works.
That is because it only exists in your mind there is nothing to understand, no examples of it in action and you continue to fail to produce anything that supports it.


A diet as for example will not and cannot prove target food to be wrong.
In that case a diet cannot prove it right either so where does that leave you?


And if you think it can, then it just goes to show your lack of understanding what it is and how it works.
The problem tooth is it is you that believes you can prove something by listing a diet not me and again your target food is a fail.


Either way, your opinion is always appreciated, but its still just an opinion and doesn't prove anything.
Problem for you is it was not my opinion. It was supported with evidence. But let’s be generous, if opinion does not prove anything then you need to shut up about target food until you have something more than just your opinion that it exists anywhere other than in your head.


I understand the theory, but it contradicts every diet ever written.
No it does not so you obviously don’t understand or don’t want to understand what optimal foraging is. It also shows you have very little understanding of diets, the world outside your door in fact you demonstrate your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.


OFT is obviously false, there is no way it could be possible with species having an afixed diet.
That is because NOTHING HAS A FIXED DIET. It has a staple food which may alter dependant on availability in the area, environmental pressures and energy in Vs risk.

So you need to stop pretending my link was bogus and read it before you make a bigger fool of yourself.


Don't take my word for it, look up the diet of any species and you will find we have afixed one.
If I look up a list that is what I will find but animals are not like a car fuel tank with petrol only written on it. Sheesh!


Random foraging is never mentioned in any of them.
You really need to learn how to use the word random. What part of optimal foraging is random?


Sure but what species exactly does OFT refer to?
Every living thing, including us.


They are not being specific and there is no way you can prove it based on that.
What a hollow excuse to deny what is staring you in the face. The fact you can observe it in one species then apply that to any other species and it remains true is how observations in science work. Where the hell were you a science major?


And why does all of the diets looked up never talk about random foraging? Because its false.
You really are clueless. Why would they talk about random foraging? What the hell is random foraging? You really don’t know what optimal foraging describes and you really don’t know how to use random in a sentence


Every diet I have postet supports the phase of hunger and abalone supports target food, so again your wrong.
You were shown to be wrong on the abalone and every diet you posted was a meaningless and your conclusions based on them wrong.


I asked for diets to prove me wrong, and you come up with a theory, nice try by no.
You asked for proof that deer experiment with other food types which you claimed to be a lie. I gave you a description of how it works backed with evidence. Nice try at deflection but NO.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So I guess the eating habbit of a lion or tiger is false too then as they eat all the meat and don't leave any to bare
You don’t have to guess. African Lion Hunting Habits As I know you will only scan through it at best

As is the case with most of Africa's predators, hunting habits do vary from one population to another. In South Africa's Kruger National Park (home to aproximately 2500 lions) waterbuck seem to be the preferred prey species, but wildebeest, zebra, buffalo, giraffe and various antelopes also feature in their kills, as well as ostriches, small crocodiles and tortoises.



It does, you can look up the eating habbits of any species and you can see there is no evolutionary connection there.
So the cheetah is just fast because it is fast. Flowers that attract only one kind of pollinator is just a fluke. A basking shark has a big mouth and it is just coincidence that food goes into it.

How can you be so far off the mark with everything you claim? Not to mention you never supplied any evidence despite many requests. You still don’t and that is why target food is a complete failure.


There is no stacks of information the prove Target Food false, there is nothing that proves it wrong. If target food is wrong then so must all of the diets that are listed.
There is stack of information that proves you wrong. Thousands of examples that show there is no such thing as target food, many of them you have been gifted and have chosen to deny.



That is a comment from prejudice. Pye was quick to jump on the opportunity to use DNA to examine the skull but he had no idea at the time that the test was flawed from the start.
I could really care less about pye and his refusal to present his evidence for scientific scrutiny. Again the point I was making is that YOU are cherry picking again what you want to believe and what you refuse to understand. You continually display ‘Optimal Ignorance’


Your inability to read has nothing to do with my problems.
You are really a tragic case.


edit on 23-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





tooth you are such a predictable child. I had no doubt you would refuse to read the link I supplied because it directly showed you wrong citing the mule deer doing what you claimed to be impossible.
Then you should learn how to properly post working links. The link you provided says bad address.




Speaking of which I suggested you post a link to a definition of natural that does work as you claimed they all say the same thing. You still have not
I have allready posted pages of different sources for the definition natural. Like I have told you before I'm not going to play the colin repeat game with you, you are welcome to review back and get them yourself.




I know how you struggle with understanding context but above is not what you wrote
Well thats my story and I'm sticking to it.




It is a wiki page. The same as the other ones you claim to be solid evidence. So I took nothing out of context.
True but there is a big difference between one wiki page being falsified and a couple dozen of them.




Go on what does every diet explain. Entertain me.
There is a hierarchy in choice of food. From instinct, all species know what food they are suppose to be eating, and they seek out that food. Since its not available in most cases, the hierarchy turns into 3 phases of hunger. Seeking Target Food the subject will follow the common denominator by going after food that is most like the Target Food for that species.




That is because it only exists in your mind there is nothing to understand, no examples of it in action and you continue to fail to produce anything that supports it.
I think the abalone has proven to be a good example of target food.




In that case a diet cannot prove it right either so where does that leave you?
This is why you have failed so poorly, you have been trying to disprove Target Food all this time, and you can't, its a process that is allready observed, and stated in every diet that you can look up online. Are you going to prove ALL diets to be wrong?




The problem tooth is it is you that believes you can prove something by listing a diet not me and again your target food is a fail.
I only listed one as an example, but the order of Target Food is visible in all diets, you can pick one of you choice to find out. Besides, you haven't come out with anything that disproves target food, and I'm still waiting. Oh wait, you tried, with another theory. You evolutionists are all the same, evolution is just an assumed theory and believed by a lot of people because the theory is more important than the facts. Not with Target Food, the facts are just as important as the theory. I'm not just using a theory to claim my position, its proven.




Problem for you is it was not my opinion. It was supported with evidence. But let’s be generous, if opinion does not prove anything then you need to shut up about target food until you have something more than just your opinion that it exists anywhere other than in your head.
Since I'm using factual diets from different species, there is no way it could just be in my head.




No it does not so you obviously don’t understand or don’t want to understand what optimal foraging is. It also shows you have very little understanding of diets, the world outside your door in fact you demonstrate your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
There is no way a species can be guilty of eating most things in a catagory and OFT claim that they never eat everything, leaving food abound. The squirrel diet is another classic example of just how wrong OFT is. The squirrl eats all of the food in the phase 1 catagory, and as a result has to move on to another diet of insects and rodents. So that is something else the proves your OFT to be wrong. Don't take my word for it, read it yourself.




That is because NOTHING HAS A FIXED DIET. It has a staple food which may alter dependant on availability in the area, environmental pressures and energy in Vs risk.

So you need to stop pretending my link was bogus and read it before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Your link errors, just like your attempts at proving me wrong.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If I look up a list that is what I will find but animals are not like a car fuel tank with petrol only written on it. Sheesh!


Generaly no, there is always the posibility of food going extinct and also season diets like with the squirrel. But we still have a pegged diet.




You really need to learn how to use the word random. What part of optimal foraging is random?
Optimum foraging is false, if it were true, species would never go hungry as they would always leave food behind.




Every living thing, including us.
Then you know its false, the squirrel alone proves it false.




What a hollow excuse to deny what is staring you in the face. The fact you can observe it in one species then apply that to any other species and it remains true is how observations in science work. Where the hell were you a science major?
Hey I'm easy, I'm asking YOU for answers.




You really are clueless. Why would they talk about random foraging? What the hell is random foraging? You really don’t know what optimal foraging describes and you really don’t know how to use random in a sentence
No I get it, to optimize energy.




You were shown to be wrong on the abalone and every diet you posted was a meaningless and your conclusions based on them wrong.
The abalone eats sea weed or kelp, that is the target food for that species. There is nothing else.




You asked for proof that deer experiment with other food types which you claimed to be a lie. I gave you a description of how it works backed with evidence. Nice try at deflection but NO
True but the example you gave didn't apply because it was a deer starving in the winter, nice try though.




So I guess the eating habbit of a lion or tiger is false too then as they eat all the meat and don't leave any to bare
And this proves my case...

but they have been known to kill excessively in the case of prey animals that are weak or young lions that go beserk.
As you can see its only in special cases to kill more than they eat.
Your link




So the cheetah is just fast because it is fast. Flowers that attract only one kind of pollinator is just a fluke. A basking shark has a big mouth and it is just coincidence that food goes into it.
None of that made any sense. It sounds like your so overwhelmed with your faith that you actually think its responsible for everything.




How can you be so far off the mark with everything you claim? Not to mention you never supplied any evidence despite many requests. You still don’t and that is why target food is a complete failure.
Target food is already an observation, I don't get what you are claiming.




There is stack of information that proves you wrong. Thousands of examples that show there is no such thing as target food, many of them you have been gifted and have chosen to deny.
You haven't presented me with anything that claims target food can't exist.




I could really care less about pye and his refusal to present his evidence for scientific scrutiny. Again the point I was making is that YOU are cherry picking again what you want to believe and what you refuse to understand. You continually display ‘Optimal Ignorance’
He used outdated science, and got outdated results.




You are really a tragic case.
Read the info from his new site and see for yourself.

star child

edit on 23-1-2013 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Then you should learn how to properly post working links. The link you provided says bad address.
Like I said, you are a predictable and childish person


I have allready posted pages of different sources for the definition natural. Like I have told you before I'm not going to play the colin repeat game with you, you are welcome to review back and get them yourself.
Then you have no objections to this one then

Natural

Strangely I don’t find anywhere anything that where it says Natural = not to do with man


Well thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
Yep, it's called being dishonest


True but there is a big difference between one wiki page being falsified and a couple dozen of them.
You don’t know how wiki works either. Boy there is a lot you don’t know and even more you refuse to learn.


There is a hierarchy in choice of food. From instinct, all species know what food they are suppose to be eating, and they seek out that food.
BS. You have been shown, linked to and been given many examples of animals that teach their young what to eat. You are displaying your innate need to deny again


Since its not available in most cases, the hierarchy turns into 3 phases of hunger.
That’s your opinion; target food is not available in all cases. It does not exist. Supply examples and prove me wrong.


Target Food the subject will follow the common denominator by going after food that is most like the Target Food for that species.
Gibberish. I thought you may be entertaining but you even failed there. Remember your views on opinion. Try giving some evidence for your fantasy.


I think the abalone has proven to be a good example of target food.
And I read Stereo’s destruction of your example. You obviously decided to deny it.


This is why you have failed so poorly, you have been trying to disprove Target Food all this time, and you can't, its a process that is allready observed, and stated in every diet that you can look up online.
I have told you that you were wrong since you invented your fantasy. I have never tried to disprove something that does not exist. I gave you real examples showing YOU wrong.


Are you going to prove ALL diets to be wrong?
What do you mean by diet? The endless, meaningless lists you supply or what is observed.


I only listed one as an example, but the order of Target Food is visible in all diets, you can pick one of you choice to find out. Besides, you haven't come out with anything that disproves target food, and I'm still waiting.
Your claim. The onus for proof is yours. the rest of your rant is because you have nothing to answer me with as you have failed to do again.


Since I'm using factual diets from different species, there is no way it could just be in my head.
The problem is the information has to be passed on and your head is the middle man where all the problems arise.


There is no way a species can be guilty of eating most things in a catagory and OFT claim that they never eat everything, leaving food abound.
Your use of English is appalling. How does a species become guilty of eating?


The squirrel diet is another classic example of just how wrong OFT is.
You have not even demonstrated that you understand optimal foraging, in fact I wonder if you can even spell it.

The rest of your garbled rant needs lots of work just to make it readable


Your link errors, just like your attempts at proving me wrong.
Of course it does anything that proves you wrong must be denied



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You don't need to quote me, I know darn good and well what I wrote. I'm sorry but I'm not finding anything in the bible that explains Sodom and Gomorrah to be a fictional city, in fact I'm not seeing anything in the bible that explains any part of the book to be fiction. So are you assuming again? Shame on you, falling back on your old evolutionists tactics, just because assuming put that theory together doesn't mean it was used for intervention.

This has to be the most inept statement ever. The same can be stated about almost every fiction book.

There is no assumption that Sodom and Gomorrah never existed. The only mention is the bible. Other examples of fiction are the flood, exodus, and those 2 creation myths in genesis.


Just because it was bombed and can't be found any longer isn't proof it never existed. You need to quit assuming.

Only person making assumptions is you. I am stating a fact. The only mention is in the bible. You are also making an assumption that the story of their destruction involved a bomb.


Well me using the claim about eating rocks being total starvation was just a matter of example. However, if you find that deer eat rocks all the time, then it is possible that rocks are a normal part of their diet, either way I'm still correct.

No you are not correct. In fact, when I brought this to your attention that deer eats rock you were quite hostile to the idea. You were just showing your nearly complete ignorance on these matters.


I'm not aware of anyone proving the bible to be fiction, can I ask was this your doing or did you have help?

It was a field of inquiry once called biblical archaeology until it was learned that the events of the bible are not seen in the artifacts such as exodus, Jericho, the flood myth, etc.


I'm sorry but I find no evidence that magic has anything to do with the supernatural, and I have already provided links proving that to be the case.

You already posted the evidence that I was correct. Thanks for repeatedly beating yourself on the head.


Sure it does, a species can't go extinct from being eaten if its at the top of the food chain.

Apex predators do not survive mass extinctions. Your inability to reason why astounds me. It is a very simple exercise in thinking.


Most of the links have been sent to me by other ATS members.

Regardless, you show time and time again that you do not understand the meaning of evolution as used in science. Hard to start a discussion when you won't take the time to learn.

Pye is not releasing the evidence. You told a lie.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join