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.

 

Science against evolution

page: 49
12
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Grimpachi
 





You are wrong and you know it or else you wouldnt be afraid to debate it. You cant back up your fantasy. If you can then prove it take it to the debate forum.
The only thing that concearns me is how some biased mod will ruin it.
Unfounded baseless accusations and gutless mewling. I understand why you put mule in your sig now.


edit on 12-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No, Target Food doesn't apply to domesticated animals as we predict what they will and can eat.
I take it 'we' means you and the other tooth's. The dentures.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You need to come up with a better name. This is what I thought about when I read your idea.




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I read from page 25 my god I couldn’t stop
after I read about cabbits.


Does he still believe they exist?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


The source is wiki.

speciation

But then again, you have always had a problem with definitions.

Allopatric, and your definition is in line with exactly what I though it was. Seperation of the species forcing evolution. It's total bunk.
edit on 12-2-2013 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
If the source was wiki how did you manage to get the term so wrong?

I see nowhere in that link where it say's Alopathic speciation. So not only do you struggle and fail to read your own links you cannot even copy across what you mistakenly thought supported you


To compound your display of ignorance you say 'Separation of the species forcing evolution.'
Mules are not known for intelligence are they


It is clear this subject even at its most basic is way above your pay grade. No wonder the debate forum scares you so much.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 
Yep. Sometimes tooth can be really entertaining but alas always wrong.

As for does tooth still believe cabbits are real. Tooth would never admit he was wrong so it is hard to tell. Someone posted the crocoduck once (it may have even been him) and he thought it was a real animal that supported him and a year later he does the same with the cabbit showing no advancement at all.

Have you not heard how shoes and socks prove evolution is wrong? How our unnatural hands show we don’t belong? Tooth claims a man can live days inside the belly of a whale by 'invoking magic' and my favourite, diversity is easily explained by god or gods using recycled parts.

I was happy to see you throw your hat in the debate ring so tooth now has 3 people to chose from but the world of tooth is a very weird land indeed.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 





If you are sure then take it to the debate forum. If your theory has any merit then you should have no problem doing so but if can’t do that small task then you must not believe in yourself or your theory. Darwin had faith in his theory and himself to where he put himself out there and stood behind his work and faced persecution and ridicule but you are afraid of a mod. If you do not have faith in yourself or your own work you shouldn’t expect others to either. I can’t take you serious if you do not take yourself serious.

I am not sure I can even call what you have a theory it is more of a lose idea.

If you wish to debate I will do so in the debate forum if you decline to do so then you have nothing worth debating


I already explained that I have recieved unfair treatment from a mod here on ATS that was as a result of somone trying to pressure me into the repeat game. Why would I even think of it. Besides I seriously doubt if ATS is the determining factor that can determin if my theory is good or not.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by JameSimon
 





Tooth, target food fails because:

Domestic animals don't have target food. Your premise fails.

And there are, of course, a whole bunch of holes in your theory, but this one will do it.
No, Target Food doesn't apply to domesticated animals as we predict what they will and can eat.


But domestic animals are only a definition. I see you took the bait. In European cultures Dogs and Cats are the most common domestic animals, but you can have almost any kind of specie as your in house company. Turtles, Pigs, Weasels, Foxes, etc. So tell me, if in a determined culture the Fox is considered a domestic animal, does it mysteriously vanish from your target food list?

On the same page, the wild hog eats pretty much everything you present to him, even if it is well fed. These one species invalidates your whole target food nonsense, which has more holes than swiss cheese.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That is such a copout. You lost a debate so instead of admitting defeat and improving yourself you blame the mod. That is such a cowardly move on your part. No one in their right mind would turn down the opportunity to prove their theory. If you can’t handle a simple debate then don’t expect anyone to believe your ideas because you do not even have faith in them. You demonstrate such poor form in blaming others for your shortcomings. You are at almost zero cred anyway you certainly cant hurt it anymore than yyou already have unless you are certain you would fail which that is probably the real reason.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



First is that patterns have been witnessed in ALL diets that prove intelligence was present to instinctively program the species.

False. That is completely false.


All species appear to know what food they are looking for as they never go through an experimental stage.

False. That is completely false.


Even odder is that all units of a species choose the exact same foods. So you can't even say that its personal choice unless you remove the personal out from it.

False. Completely false.

None of that is true. You can't even figure out what a species is let alone have any evidence for these claims.


So I'm all ears, I'd like to hear what you got. /quote]
Evidence against all of those rubbish claims already posted in t his thread.

Take this rubbish to the debate forum.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




Again the fossil records don't prove diversity anymore than creation can.

No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, and anyone that claims otherwise should have their credentials revoked.

Alopathic speciation isn't proof that a species has changed, just that they are no longer able to breed. It's a common assumption made by evolutionists, and its a sad one. There are perhaps hundreds of other reasons that could explain why a species is no longer able to breed with its group, but evolutionists jump to the conclusion that it must have changed species.

There is also no proof that all changes are always part of the larger network known as evolution. It's only assumed to be. LIke I explained over and over, ADHD has shown that victims have altered genes. This is a new find which means that prior to this people would have assumed that those with ADHD have evolved. They now know that the introduction of lead into somones system can cause the genetic changes, which is also possible from smoking ciggeretts.

So unless you agree that smoking causes evolution, your wrong.

This rubbish has already been shown to be wrong in this thread.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If there was plentiful proof that evolution exists, you would be laying that information on me rather than trying to convince me with there is simply tons of proof. What seems to be obvious is there is speculation, and assumptions.

It's only speculated that a species can evolve, its never been witnessed, and all you need to do is prove me wrong and show me where a species has changed into another species. Where is the proof ??? Your just a little short in this.

There is no proof that speciation is a species changing, again its only speculation based on the fact that they are no longer able to breed, which in itself is not proof. Again assujmptions were made that relationship isolation proves speciation, and its false. My neighbor is unable to breed with her husband and I don't think its because she evolved.

Evidence already posted in this thread.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 



I would also like to explain to you and others that when I point out the failings of tooth’s claims based on the bible I am talking about tooth’s version of the bible which is a very different book.

That is not to say the bible has any meaning for me, it does not but I do try to respect the meaning it has for others. Tooth has consistently abused that respect so receives none.

I too would like to point out that regardless of whether or not the events described in the bible happened as described, there are important lessons in the bible that can benefit everyone.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No one has ever witnessed a species evolving, and anyone that claims to have, needs to have their credentials revoked.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Your opinion is greatly appreciated, but just simply saying that something is false without providing any proof of it, is false.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


There is nothing cowerdly about not wanting to play the repeat game and getting your thread closed as a result.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JameSimon
 





But domestic animals are only a definition. I see you took the bait. In European cultures Dogs and Cats are the most common domestic animals, but you can have almost any kind of specie as your in house company. Turtles, Pigs, Weasels, Foxes, etc. So tell me, if in a determined culture the Fox is considered a domestic animal, does it mysteriously vanish from your target food list?

On the same page, the wild hog eats pretty much everything you present to him, even if it is well fed. These one species invalidates your whole target food nonsense, which has more holes than swiss cheese.
I'm not understanding your question. The part where your asking does it mysteriously vanish from my target food list.

Everything is suppose to have intended food, is the best way to explain this. Most species are eating food that was NOT intended for them. Most of this has to do with the fact that they have all been moved from their homes, and their food is not with them. As a result, most things are eating food that was no intended for them. What this means is that most species have had to adapt, including humans.

Target Food was never here to begin with, so thats where I'm no understanding your question.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


There you go again, business as usual, making false claims about me. I never claimed that crockoduck was real. I am however concearned about you believing that a field mouse baited to somones door with food, evolves into a door mouse.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If the source was wiki how did you manage to get the term so wrong?

I see nowhere in that link where it say's Alopathic speciation. So not only do you struggle and fail to read your own links you cannot even copy across what you mistakenly thought supported you

To compound your display of ignorance you say 'Separation of the species forcing evolution.' Mules are not known for intelligence are they

It is clear this subject even at its most basic is way above your pay grade. No wonder the debate forum scares you so much.
Have you lost your marbles, AGAIN? It was a copy and paste from a wiki column so I have no idea how you can claim that it was a mistake of mine. Did you not see the link I posted for the copy and paste?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 





You need to come up with a better name. This is what I thought about when I read your idea.
After much consideration, Target Food is still the ideal name for the observation. It's because the consumer has a specific food that it's targeting.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join