Science against evolution

reply to post by SplitInfinity

ou must be kidding to say there is no proof in the Fossil records. We have recovered MANY different stages of Human Development and I have already given you the example of how we can visually see a species evolving into another species in front of ones eyes.

Which is fine and dandy, but that doesn't prove relation.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So let me get this straight, you have single handedly disproven the creation theory

Been proved wrong by many people over centuries.

Well its not obvious, as in there is no way they could know the difference, but still some diets are better for the consumer then others and thats just a fact of science. If I'm wrong then you need to let our scientists know to give up on trying to come up with an ideal diet because according to you, its not possible.

So you admit one of your claims is wrong. Thanks.

Life can't flourish when its out of balance, its that simple.

Take the example of 98% of all species going extinct right now. Life is dying on this planet, and I guarantee its not a natural process.

Please drop the opinions. You need evidence. Please provide evidence for your 98% claim.

extinctions wiki

That is an estimate based on EVOLUTION and how does that apply to today? You need to show that is happening today and not that it happened before.

Thats what you get for not clicking on the links. And your right, its not that its going to happen, I was wrong, its already happened. Read up.

Please show that 98% is connected to today. You have not. Read up.

So it must be a pretty big shock to you for the first time to realize that your living on a dying planet, looks like even evolution is failing to provide answers for this one. It's because of what I have been explaining all along, someone gathered all this life and placed it on earth, and you can't do that.

All you've shown is that you accept a number base don evolution and also do not understand the term evolution.

Ok then perhaps you would agree that without food we all die.

Looks like you backed off another ridiculous claim.

Target Food exists based on patterns observed in the search for intended food by over 30 varied diets. I'm not going to play the repeat game when you obviously don't even click on my links.

Stop the opinions and provide evidence for TF.

Did you not read your own link, I have the most time invested in this area and I can tell you didn't even read it. First of all most cearels and grains have calcium added because they come up short.

Not what the link stated. I quoted the unfortified section. Please take the time to read before posting.

Here is how weak your argument is, I noticed you listed broccli as a good source of calcium. Thats 21 mg per 1/2 cup so ya your right as long as you eat 47 servings of it per day, thats 23 cups of broccli per day. Did you not pay attention that you need 1000 mg per day, not 21mg?

Straw man argument. I never made any statements about it being the only source.

reply to post by itsthetooth


To review. This is what you wrote.

An excellent example is how we have no natural source for calcium.

All I have to do was show you were in error. You get an F.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So once again, you have the inside scoop that could wipe out all business for all supplement stores

Ever heard of marketing?

You give me this calcium list that supports everything I have been telling you, then you want to try to sell me on the idea that eating cows milk is probably natural for humans, even though it has to be processed. Why don't you try to find a natural supply for calcium, and good luck.

Vegans manage quite well.

The original issue was you claimed no natural source for calcium. That was false. This calcium claim is as idiotic as TF and the existence of cabbits.

reply to post by itsthetooth

We also suffer from many food related illnesses, and food isn't suppose to make you sick its suppose to make you healthy, providing your eating what your supose to. There is no such thing as a perfect diet, simply because our food isn't here.

Please provide evidence.

Which part?

For all of the ludicrous claims.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Does the dear ever eat cat, dog, wolf, squirrel, rocks, dirt, no, hes obviously not experimenting.

Deer eat dirt and rock. Deer will eat meat from garbage cans. Deer will experiment with almost anything placed in front of them regardless of the abundance of food. Heather cannot be on a deer's diet. End of story.

reply to post by itsthetooth

At least my school never taught me to see things that aren't there, or that aren't documented, like deer that experiment

Evidence already posted.

The onus is on you to support your claim that animals never experiment with food. That has already been shown to be false, but please show us why you think that is true. Please show us your evidence and not more senseless opinion.

Deer eating meat.
www.outdoorlife.com...
www.kpcnews.net...:seeing-is-believing-with-meat-eating-deer&catid=37:don-mulligan&Itemid=55

Deer experiment with food just almost all animals experiment with food. I showed you squirrels eat meat after you vehemently denied it. You once denied deer were browsers.

So please show us your evidence that animals do not experiment with food.

reply to post by stereologist

So let me get this straight, you have single handedly disproven the creation theory

Been proved wrong by many people over centuries.

I must be behind the times, so then you obviously have proof if its been that long.

Where is your proof or are you just on here to keep spouting your opinion?

Well its not obvious, as in there is no way they could know the difference, but still some diets are better for the consumer then others and thats just a fact of science. If I'm wrong then you need to let our scientists know to give up on trying to come up with an ideal diet because according to you, its not possible.

So you admit one of your claims is wrong. Thanks.

sarcasticly.

Life can't flourish when its out of balance, its that simple.

Take the example of 98% of all species going extinct right now. Life is dying on this planet, and I guarantee its not a natural process.

Please drop the opinions. You need evidence. Please provide evidence for your 98% claim.

Which part, the figure or the fact that life can't flourish.

That is an estimate based on EVOLUTION and how does that apply to today? You need to show that is happening today and not that it happened before.

Strawman argument, either way it happened.

Thats what you get for not clicking on the links. And your right, its not that its going to happen, I was wrong, its already happened. Read up.

Please show that 98% is connected to today. You have not. Read up.

The article is about current day.

Over 98% of documented species are now extinct

extinctions

Thats past tense in case you missed it.

All you've shown is that you accept a number base don evolution and also do not understand the term evolution.

There is a difference between accepting and understanding, and I think you have confused the two.

Ok then perhaps you would agree that without food we all die.

Looks like you backed off another ridiculous claim.

So are you agreeing, or are you trying to claim that species don't need food to survive? Either way your wrong.

Target Food exists based on patterns observed in the search for intended food by over 30 varied diets. I'm not going to play the repeat game when you obviously don't even click on my links.

Stop the opinions and provide evidence for TF.

I'm not going to play the repeat game with you and it looks like it wouldn't do any good cause you don't pay attention.

Did you not read your own link, I have the most time invested in this area and I can tell you didn't even read it. First of all most cearels and grains have calcium added because they come up short.

Not what the link stated. I quoted the unfortified section. Please take the time to read before posting

You also included broccli which is a total joke and tells me that you aren't paying attention.

raw man argument. I never made any statements about it being the only source.

The argument, in case you missed it which its obvious that you have, is that its a bad food. This food is an empty filler and not good for human consumption. Unless you want to be filled up with low values.

An excellent example is how we have no natural source for calcium.


All I have to do was show you were in error. You get an F.

Then bone up on you broccli and watch how healthy you get

So once again, you have the inside scoop that could wipe out all business for all supplement stores

Ever heard of marketing?


You give me this calcium list that supports everything I have been telling you, then you want to try to sell me on the idea that eating cows milk is probably natural for humans, even though it has to be processed. Why don't you try to find a natural supply for calcium, and good luck.

Vegans manage quite well.

The original issue was you claimed no natural source for calcium. That was false. This calcium claim is as idiotic as TF and the existence of cabbits.

So now your going against science which tells us that we need 1000mg per day in calcium, and your making a claim that we can do just fine without it. Ok so I figured out at this point that you didn't attend Yale, Harvard, or MIT.

reply to post by stereologist

We also suffer from many food related illnesses, and food isn't suppose to make you sick its suppose to make you healthy, providing your eating what your supose to. There is no such thing as a perfect diet, simply because our food isn't here.


Please provide evidence.


Which part?


For all of the ludicrous claims.

CDC food related illnesses

Deer eat dirt and rock. Deer will eat meat from garbage cans. Deer will experiment with almost anything placed in front of them regardless of the abundance of food. Heather cannot be on a deer's diet. End of story.

Eating dirt, rocks and poo are all signs of a species starving.

At least my school never taught me to see things that aren't there, or that aren't documented, like deer that experiment

Evidence already posted.

The onus is on you to support your claim that animals never experiment with food. That has already been shown to be false, but please show us why you think that is true. Please show us your evidence and not more senseless opinion.

And you lie, you have never posted any proof of any species experimenting with food. Which doesn't matter because ALL species would have to have been observed experimenting for the idea to be true.

You posted something about a deer eating his regular diet, and it was self posted it didn't even look like it was a copy and paste. So again, you make things up and you lie.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Allopathic speciation is a joke.

And a pretty sad joke at that. Tell me are you allergic to knowledge? You say you cut and pasted this from your link to evolution. I point out you must have somehow messed up even that simple task

You then cut and past again from that link telling me how dishonest I am and how I have lost my marbles again. I pointed out to you the word was ALLOPATRIC not ALOPATHIC confirmed by your paste and you did indeed mess up a simple task.

You ignore my post, no surprise I know you are not man enough to admit error. Then two posts down you repeat the exact same thing

Are you for real? You must be just one pathetic and lonely troll or you display such a disconnect with intelligence it would make a flea blush

You then go on to display you still do not know what Allopatric speciation describes and have ignored all the information on the very wiki definition of evolution you linked to

Forget Allopathic speciation is a joke. Mate you are the biggest joke made funnier because you cannot see it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

At least I'm honest unlike you. Moving the goal posts all the time so that your fantasy works. Like claiming the house sparrow is attracted to the man and not the house. Wouldn't have have named him a man sparrow if that was the case?

Your methods of deducing facts are very amusing to say the least. The only problem is double standards are involved when talking about the bible or evolution. You believe one of them, just because it says so; you dismiss the other simply because small parts of it are hypothesis. You ignore countless experiments or attempt to undermine them by playing word games, not by doing your own experiments or providing evidence of an alternate explanation. You use one part of an article to allegedly prove your point, but ignore the blatant part of it that proves the other side. That is called cherry picking, my friend. If you wish to make a logical argument, you need to fully analyze and understand BOTH sides of the argument, not just the one that applies to your beliefs.

They wouldn't have named it a driveway if it wasn't meant for driving!! They wouldn't call it a freeway if it wasn't free!

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Nope. You have maintained that due to 4000 defects we need medical intervention to live past puberty.

No I didn't, you need to go back and read it again. What I said is that we have over 4000 defects in our genes and that 12 of them wont allow you to live past puberty.

For the fourth time now.

I did go back and quoted you so you did indeed say that And

Check out Lloyd Pye's Human genetics video.
Over 4000 gross defects, over 2 dozen that wont allow you to live past puberty.

And this

I never said the bubonic plague would wipe us out before puberty. What I said was that out of 4000 defects in our genes, 2 dozen of them wouldn't allow you to make it past puberty per Pye's video.

Links were provided you decided to ignore them

You not only again display total devotion to dishonesty but show all your nonsense is designed and altered with one thing in mind

TROLL

reply to post by itsthetooth

I must be behind the times, so then you obviously have proof if its been that long.

Where is your proof or are you just on here to keep spouting your opinion?

Evidence already posted in thread.

BY failing to provide evidence for your claims and posting contrary statements to your own claims you are demolishing TF. Absolutely expected.

Which part, the figure or the fact that life can't flourish.

Stop the delay and post the evidence of your claims.

Strawman argument, either way it happened.

No argument made. Simply pointing out that the 98% value is derived from evolution. You still have not shown why you claim that value for today. Still waiting.

The article is about current day.

It is a study across evolutionary history with 98% of life having evolved and died out. Your claim is that:

In case you didn't know, earth is now in the 6th mass extinction looking at a loss of 98% of all life, and thats a quote from wiki.

You wrote "looking at" not already happened. Thus the article has no bearing on your claim.

extinctions

Thats past tense in case you missed it.

That's an evolutionist document expressing that 98% of life forms that evolved have also died out.

There is a difference between accepting and understanding, and I think you have confused the two.

False.

So are you agreeing, or are you trying to claim that species don't need food to survive? Either way your wrong.

Little kid response. You are definitely backing off a false claim.

Target Food exists based on patterns observed in the search for intended food by over 30 varied diets. I'm not going to play the repeat game when you obviously don't even click on my links.

Stop the opinions and provide evidence for TF.

You also included broccli which is a total joke and tells me that you aren't paying attention.

Irrelevant commentary already addressed. Your claim is false.

The argument, in case you missed it which its obvious that you have, is that its a bad food. This food is an empty filler and not good for human consumption. Unless you want to be filled up with low values.

Irrelevant commentary. Please provide evidence for TF

An excellent example is how we have no natural source for calcium.

All I have to do was show you were in error. You get an F.

So now your going against science which tells us that we need 1000mg per day in calcium, and your making a claim that we can do just fine without it. Ok so I figured out at this point that you didn't attend Yale, Harvard, or MIT.

Childish commentary. You were wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

CDC food related illnesses

Irrelevant. Please provide evidence for TF

Eating dirt, rocks and poo are all signs of a species starving.

Done year round regardless of the abundance of food. You are wrong.

And you lie, you have never posted any proof of any species experimenting with food. Which doesn't matter because ALL species would have to have been observed experimenting for the idea to be true.

You posted something about a deer eating his regular diet, and it was self posted it didn't even look like it was a copy and paste. So again, you make things up and you lie.

You lie. Lots posted.

What has never been posted is evidence for TF. So far all we have is the opinion of tooth.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Eating dirt, rocks and poo are all signs of a species starving.

You have done this before. Many times before and proved wrong every time you attempt it. The old repeat game.

Coprophagia

Coprophagia /kɒp.rə.ˈfeɪ.dʒi.ə/[1] or coprophagy is the consumption of feces, from the Greek κόπρος copros, "feces" and φαγεῖν phagein, "to eat". Many animal species practice coprophagia as a matter of course; other species do not normally consume feces but may do so under unusual conditions. Coprophagy refers to many kinds of feces eating including eating feces of other species (heterospecifics),of other individuals (allocoprophagy), or its own (autocoprophagy), those once deposited or taken directly from the anus.[2]

You confirm this by the amount of crap you feed us

Tooth. You won’t read the link I supplied but I suggest all the others taking part in this thread do. This troll has shovelled this crap for too long.

The debate forum is waiting for him if he wants to debate any food based topic and that is the only answer we should give him

I don’t know about you but his SH@t is not my target food and certainly not directly from his anus

Not one piece of evidence offered since posting the TF post. Not one drop.

It's off to the debate forum to see TF in action.

Tooth, your link states that "Over 98% of species" that ever existed! You can't even read. Of course over 98% of species are extinct, it's a timeline of over 3 Billion years. I repeat, you can't even read.

And btw, I'm waiting for your answers on my questions and statements. Choosen to ignore? That only proves me right. Your arguments are flawed and here is one list:

"Every species has a target food" - Wrong. I provided the example of the Wild Hog;

"We never watched the evolution of one species to another" - We watched Dogs evolving from Wolves and Domestic Cats evolving from Wildcats. Different species in both accounts;

"I won't play the repeat game" - That's all you've been playing. People ask for links, credible sources, for you to defend your theory and nothing comes from that side;

Want proof of evolution? I studied as Oral Medicine Assistant (or whatever you call it there) and surprise, Wisdom teeth are less and less present in younger generations. I miss 2 of them. That's proof of evolution. Losing our 3rd eyelid too. And many more.

Another proof of evolution? Wales usually have bone structures pretty similar to earth dwelling mammals, but they don't have feet. They are vestigial, proving, once more, evolution right, as their family is the best documented in fossil recording and, surprise, their ancestors used to be earth dwelling mammals.

And I'm pass puberty, so there goes another "argument" of yours

Originally posted by stereologist
Deer eating meat.
www.outdoorlife.com...
www.kpcnews.net...:seeing-is-believing-with-meat-eating-deer&catid=37:don-mulligan&Itemid=55

Deer experiment with food just almost all animals experiment with food. I showed you squirrels eat meat after you vehemently denied it. You once denied deer were browsers.

So please show us your evidence that animals do not experiment with food.

WOW!

Is that something you already knew, or something you found due to this debate?

Either way, I think I owe tooth a thank you. Because due to this madness, I have learnt something new about Deer behaviour. And added more ammo for the debate about TF......Onwards to the debate forum.




P.S. Also full respect and thanks to stero' for bringing this to the table.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist

 

Eating dirt, rocks and poo are all signs of a species starving.

Personaly I think "dirt and rock" can be lumped together, and with that in mind........

Can you remember tooth..the many, many pages on a previous thread, where we discussed all mammals needing to eat rocks of certain varieties?

Can you remember tooth...the specific rock that all mammals need to eat in order to survive? The one we die without?

Go on tooth, prove that you have the ability to learn, tell us the rock that all mammals crave and die without.

As for eating feaces...already been covered in this thread so one word...Panda!

I dont know how a single individual can be so wrong, about so many things in such a small period of time....and still have managed to live past puberty....I think you can add another defect to Pyes list.....mental.