Science against evolution

page: 35
12
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I suggest to make the reader aware you should start your nonsense you posted with

ONCE UPON A TIME.


Target Food is NOT an idea, its an observed event, revealing patterns and instinct within EVERY species.
Target food is a failed idea to be correct.

As for the drivel you went on to write. Please provide evidence to support those opinions

edit on 3-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   


OMG stating that Target Food is wrong is not the same as proving it wrong. Besides, you claimed I never posted the theory on here, so how could you possibly prove something wrong when you don't even know what the theory is, or are you lying?


Hipocrisy




Evolution is not used in science, only adaptation.


False




I know enough about evolution to know that its fantasy. I know enough to know that no one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species. I know enough to know that there is no proof that we share a common ancestor with apes. I know enough to know that speciation is assumed from groups of species no longer breeding with the original group, which isn't proof.


Proof the tooth does not know what evolution is.

Evolution

Seriously... what more does ATS need to see that this tooth as a fraud?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Here's an idea.....

......for those that have taken the the time to debate this non-sense, and I understand your reasoning, why not end this quickly and achieve your goal, by simply moving this debate to the actual debate forum? There it will be judged by impartial members, whom have debating skills and integrity. Show tooth in all his glory in a structured, controlled environment, where his/ their debating style, or lack there of, will become quite apparent to ATS members and staff.

A simple step to expose the insanity and hopefully clean up this forum.

Tooth wins, he can use TF as evidence in future threads, but if tooth looses, TF is never mentioned again on this site. Sound fair?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 
Sounds fair to me.

Edit: I also think you should add if tooth refuses to take part in the suggested debate he loses by default.

The reverse also applies. If no one stands against him tooth wins by default



edit on 3-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Connector
 
Sounds fair to me



Excellent!

My work and lifestyle doesn't allow me to be dependable posting here, so I must decline the challenge, but perhaps one of the members that have been active in debating him will step up. You, stereo, Barcs, idmonster, itero, flyingfish, Split, XYZ, etc. should talk and decide which it will be.

Tooth are you game???? This is your chance to really hit one outta the park for your theory of TF


~ETA~ Just saw your edit and I agree 100%
edit on 3-2-2013 by Connector because: added more members for the challenge



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Connector
 
Sounds fair to me



Excellent!

My work and lifestyle doesn't allow me to be dependable posting here, so I must decline the challenge, but perhaps one of the members that have been active in debating him will step up. You, stereo, Barcs, idmonster, itero, flyingfish, etc. should talk and decide which it will be.

Tooth are you game???? This is your chance to really hit one outta the park for your theory of TF


~ETA~ Just saw your edit and I agree 100%
edit on 3-2-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)
We will have to debate who as I expect there will be a long line more than willing to stand.

Edit Sugestion remove as answered above
edit on 3-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist
 




Another lie. TF is a fantasy believe by apparently only 1 person.
False, the eating habbits and patterns I have observed, have also been observed by other people as well. As an example...

paleohacks


I am stunned !!!!!

To show that "other people" have observed the same thing as you....you link to an post written by.....You!





posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
From the lack of response to his post I think they are stunned as well



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Even better...the article that opens the debate, and quite a few others actualy are the opposite of what he thinks they are.

We;ve seen this many times, where he ignorantly provides a link based on the headline without actually reading the content. Below is the opening post if full.

"Take many an opportunistic species out of it's natural habitat and give it ready access to all types of unnatural, savory foods, and they will gorge and get fat and sick just like us. Goats will choose grains, fruit and other sweet/starchy foods over grass, bark and weeds any day - they'll eat them until they're severely ill if they get the chance (take if from someone who spent her formative years around plenty of goats!).

Some animals truly are specialized in their eating habits, so much that they will starve and die if their one usual food source is taken away. But humans are one of the ultimate omnivores. We're hardly alone however.

Most of the bird species you mentioned for instance are seasonal/local opportunistic eaters. You may see them eating mass amounts of one available food source but they are actually well-adapted to a variety of foods, depending on where they are and what is available. A good example is the American robin; did you know the majority of their calories come from fruits and berries? The worms and larvae we seem to see them hunting all day are mostly for feeding their babies. Give robins unlimited access to fermented sweet fruits, and they show a preference for eating them until they are thoroughly intoxicated (and can't fly). Hardly any wisdom involved there.

When we're living in our natural environment we have limited access to the naturally-occurring foods that aren't ideal (honey, mass quantities of fruits) and usually plenty of access to those that are (animals, vegetables, tubers, nuts)."

Plenty of "observed events" showing animals prefering food other than their usual diet,



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist
 


Like I have already stated three times now, the reasoning behind my posts is to hopfully find someone that can disprove Target Food.

I won't however simply accept simple things like its false, or fake, or can't be proven. Someone somewhere has to be able to prove it false, and they should be able to do so without cheating and wihtout moving the goal posts.



Then start a thread asking peolpe to prove your crappy little brain spasm of an idea wrong and stop wasting everybodies bandwidth.




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





I am stunned !!!!!

To show that "other people" have observed the same thing as you....you link to an post written by.....You!
Not my post at the bottom, the post on the top.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Then start a thread asking peolpe to prove your crappy little brain spasm of an idea wrong and stop wasting everybodies bandwidth.
I did, and some people didn't believe that I was the author of the theory, and insisted that I stole it from someone, and when they couldn't find an author, or prove it wrong, they insisted on closing the thread down.

It just goes to show you that some people are babies when they don't get their way.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Which still doesnt agree with you as it refers to the varied diets of Robins and a Goats preference to eat pretty much anything other than what it would find in its usual habitat.

Most of that site is conjecture relating to animal diets and fills a need in the people who post there to hark back to simpler times. I read the entire board and found no scientific evidence therein that disproved, or even seemed to want to disprove evolution.

I dont know why you linked to it as it was irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





Then start a thread asking peolpe to prove your crappy little brain spasm of an idea wrong and stop wasting everybodies bandwidth.
I did, and some people didn't believe that I was the author of the theory, and insisted that I stole it from someone, and when they couldn't find an author, or prove it wrong, they insisted on closing the thread down.

It just goes to show you that some people are babies when they don't get their way.


Here's your chance.....are you confident enough to take TF to the debate forum?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Connector
 
Sounds fair to me



Excellent!

My work and lifestyle doesn't allow me to be dependable posting here, so I must decline the challenge, but perhaps one of the members that have been active in debating him will step up. You, stereo, Barcs, idmonster, itero, flyingfish, Split, XYZ, etc. should talk and decide which it will be.

Tooth are you game???? This is your chance to really hit one outta the park for your theory of TF


~ETA~ Just saw your edit and I agree 100%
edit on 3-2-2013 by Connector because: added more members for the challenge


I guess that leaves me out I can't even spell Hypocrisy



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Connector
 
Sounds fair to me



Excellent!

My work and lifestyle doesn't allow me to be dependable posting here, so I must decline the challenge, but perhaps one of the members that have been active in debating him will step up. You, stereo, Barcs, idmonster, itero, flyingfish, Split, XYZ, etc. should talk and decide which it will be.

Tooth are you game???? This is your chance to really hit one outta the park for your theory of TF


~ETA~ Just saw your edit and I agree 100%
edit on 3-2-2013 by Connector because: added more members for the challenge


I guess that leaves me out I can't even spell Hypocrisy


lulz......don't think that would hamper the outcome


tooth.....oh tooth...do you accept the challenge? We aren't going away
[

~ETA~ And so you feel comfortable, we'll title the debate "Target Food Proves Evolution Wrong", just like your thread that was shut down.
edit on 3-2-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Which still doesnt agree with you as it refers to the varied diets of Robins and a Goats preference to eat pretty much anything other than what it would find in its usual habitat.
The further a species is from its target food, the wilder its choice is.


Goats are reputed to be willing to eat almost anything, including tin cans and cardboard boxes. While goats will not actually eat inedible material, they are browsing animals, not grazers like cattle and sheep, and (coupled with their natural curiosity) will chew on and taste just about anything resembling plant matter to decide whether it is good to eat, including cardboard and paper labels from tin cans.[20] Another possibility is goats are curious about the unusual smells of leftover food in discarded cans or boxes.


A domestic goat feeding in a field of capeweed, a weed which is toxic to most stock animalsAside from sampling many things, goats are quite particular in what they actually consume, preferring to browse on the tips of woody shrubs and trees, as well as the occasional broad-leaved plant. However, it can fairly be said that their plant diet is extremely varied, and includes some species which are otherwise toxic.[21] They will seldom consume soiled food or contaminated water unless facing starvation. This is one reason goat-rearing is most often free ranging, since stall-fed goat-rearing involves extensive upkeep and is seldom commercially viable.


goat wiki

Goats prefer to eat shrubs and trees. Since this is a broad diet, this automatically tells you that its not a Target Food and he is either in phase one of hunger while eating trees and shrubs and possibly phase 2 when he picks up another food group.




Most of that site is conjecture relating to animal diets and fills a need in the people who post there to hark back to simpler times. I read the entire board and found no scientific evidence therein that disproved, or even seemed to want to disprove evolution.

I dont know why you linked to it as it was irrelevant.
False, there is infomation in there that is gold. The patterns of diets chosen by such a wide range of species, and the fact that all units of a species are found to be eating the same things, proves evolution wrong. You see, it is a choice, a choice this is made, but its a choice that obviously has strict direction.

Target Food is evident in every diet, the patterns of choice are evident in every diet, and the fact that they never experiment unless they are starving is also evident in every diet. There is a clear motivator behind the choice they make in what to eat, which evolution dropped the ball on.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





Here's your chance.....are you confident enough to take TF to the debate forum?
LOL, Target Food was already taken to a debate forum. The people on the forum were so jelous of the theory that they worked on getting it closed down, since they couldn't prove it wrong.

But they did however tell me that they didn't believe that I was the author of Target Food and they were sure that I stole it from someone. LOL, right.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I guess that leaves me out I can't even spell Hypocrisy
The forum for target food is still posted, but closed.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





Here's your chance.....are you confident enough to take TF to the debate forum?
LOL, Target Food was already taken to a debate forum. The people on the forum were so jelous of the theory that they worked on getting it closed down, since they couldn't prove it wrong.

But they did however tell me that they didn't believe that I was the author of Target Food and they were sure that I stole it from someone. LOL, right.


Which debate forum was that? You mean the thread you started in this forum, that got shut down for foolishness? If so, that doesn't count. Come on...let's do this legit in the DEBATE forum, with impartial judges and a structured debating format. Are you not confident enough to take TF to the next level....judged before the cream of the crop @ ATS, so to speak. Are you wimping out?

~ETA~ Here's the debating forum rules and guidelines....

ATS Debate Forum Rules and Guidelines

Once the person whom shall debate tooth regarding TF is decided, we'll contact a supermod to get things rolling


edit on 3-2-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join