Science against evolution

page: 64
12
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
As an example of the inconsistencies, here are some of his previous claims:

Most other animals are actually provided with what they need.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Forms of adaptation like processing cows milk, would not be necessary on our home planet. We would have what our intended diet calls for.
And
I like to look at the ant eater. Check this guy out. He has a long snout to smell for the ants, long claws to dig up the ant hills, and a long sticky tounge to grab ants out of deep places. You could never question that this little guy was created with the whole idea of eating ants. And if he was ever smart enough to actually think about himself one day, do you think he would have any problem figuring out what his purpose in life is? No, its all to obvious. He is home, and fits in very well here. It would be the same way if we were on our home planet. There would be things that match up with our needs without even thinking about it. Keep in mind that god supposedly set us up with some things to help us out, and the cow might be one of them. However nothing here is from our home and that is made clear.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Most things on this planet don't have to go very far for food, and even if they do, they are at least equiped in natural ways to catch it.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looking at 5 million other species on this planet you start to see a patern. This pattern of fitting in and things just naturally working for most, leads me to believe we are short changed here.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's all a big mess because you might think we should be fine but from a technical point of view we will never be fine on this planet. Even if god has transported all of the necessary things from our home (which the bible specifically says he did not) that would have also of knocked off the eco balance of this planet.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

God did provide us with many things to get by when he dumped us here, and the cow might be one such critter.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well chimps are part of an existing eco system here on earth. So they fit in and have a diet here that supports them and the whole nine
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It a valid statement that nature does not care if a child is born, but if it were a chimp, it does care and its taken care of.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is nothing substantial to prove they came here with us. Unless the jungle, food and enviroment came with them as well. Again they are part of something here, we are not. There is a big difference if you think about it.

From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see then it just must be a coincedence that 99.9% of the species fit in or have a nitch here and we don't.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...


What? Didn't I mention that somewhere around 97% of all species ever are extinct?
reply
I have never heard such an outrageious claim, were any of them sub species that we are talking about here?
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why does it seem more like your misinterpretation, than ours. We are taking it at straight face value, and your the one twisting it.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is there some type of theory to fill this giant gap on what we are suppose to eat? Or do we just become scavangers? I doubt it because 99.99% of the things here on earth have a suited diet
And
What are we suppose to eat? Keep in mind that humans are part of the .009% that don't fit in with diet.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

One thing is for sure, each planet is created with a balance of life, a balance eco system, and if I'm wrong, nothing would live for to long. It's another reason I know evolution isn't correct. It's not possible for a species to change, and change diet as well and assume it will have the needed food. The cycle of life is oh so precious. I stick to my guns that humans are NOT from earth. We are NOT part of this eco system and in fact we are destroying the planet while mother nature continues to push us off. No one has ever been able to explain differently to me.

I said this before but a tele program I watched ( even though I know some people snicker about this ) showed what appears to be planets forming from gasses in the galaxy. On them is automatically life as we understand it to be. It would again have to be balanced as well. It's weird, very weird.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now with 99.99% or possibly 99.999% this life fits into what is obviously known as a balanced eco system. Humans do not appear to be eco friendly to this planet.
From
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Yep. He has come up with an idea to prove his fantasy and is trying to make the world fit it and failing badly. Worse still when he is shown wrong he refuses to accept it.

Isnt that what he claims 'evolutionists' do?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by colin42
 


Yup,

Just showing the lack of consistency in his delusion.

Unfortunately for me, it means dipping back into the madness.

I'm hoping that it might shock him back to reality.
Freud only had sexual repression, i could make a career out of this guy.


I know, I did the same thing and remember one of your early posts there. Let's see if you do. It went something like

How can I take a post seriously that begins 'behold shoes'



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I just love how YOUR going to prove me wrong, but the onus is on me. LOL.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


It gets worse, The post above is unedited as yet, however, i'm sure you will see why i chose them.

He claims in this thread that animal were transported with their environment. Yet in past threads uses the phrase " unless the jungle was brought here with them" in a derogative manner to suggest that certain animals were always here.

I don't suggest it, but all of the quotes above need to be read in context in order to ascertain in what way they are contradictory to his new position.

I will ensure that all of the correct posts are added at the appropriate time with the appropriate links for context.

NEW MOTTO - DON'T JUST DENY IGNORANCE, FIGHT IT



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Thanks for that....
I do.

My family now think I'm mental cos' I'm laughing at the internet.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



This is because the food they are eating is not the correct food.

That's just unsubstantiated opinion.


Why is he eating his own poop and no one elses, how dishonest can you be trying to make it look otherwise.

It's poop. You seem to have trouble believing that poop is a food source and a part of the diet of many animals.


When are you going to get it colin, that Target Food is a relationship between the consumer and the food not the planet and the consumer?

Opinion based on fantasy.


So in other words all things that happen are natural. your wrong.

Unsubstantiated opinion.


Actually quite the opposite, his gut isn't working properly because he's eating the wrong food, which is what I have been telling you all along.

False.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And you would be wrong, the wiki on it specifically states that the fecal pellets are passed by and the undigested food pelets are reeaten.
No it does not say that. It states the rabbit produces two types of fecal pellets. One is dry and light in colour which is not eaten. The other is dark and moist which is passed through the digestive system a second time.

Again why do you think the rabbit’s digestive system has evolved in this way? Can cows produce two different pellets? They eat simular foods, so explain, supporting evidence would be nice


I just did, he is obviously eating his own pellets because there is something wrong with his diet.
Nope. If the rabbit did not do this his digestive system would not be able to breakdown the food enough to get the vitamins it needs. This does not change no matter what the rabbit eats. That is how the rabbit’s digestive system works. If he did not eat his feces the rabbit would die of malnutrition.

Everyone here has provided the evidence and you can deny it all you like but it is an inescapable fact.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No I think its more that you feel backed into a corner so your trying to rely on semantics to bail you out.

No. You keep moving the goal posts and I am trying to get you to state your position clearly.


Some of the things I say about evolution, I'm just being sarcastic, and I do question a lot of things about it.

That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.


Thats not me choosing genius, I'm purposly listing the whole quote from google so you don't try to say I'm cherri picking.

That makes no sense. You choose multiple different definitions. Do you realize that?


It's a seasonal food that he is resorting to because he is out of target food.

Not looking for your excuses why TF doesn't work. I am asking about diets.


Sure, when they are starving.

That's just ridiculous. I'm not asking you for excuses as to why TF doesn't work. Let me clarify this for you.

You provide a number of definitions for experimentation. Notice there are multiple different definitions of experimentation in your list. According to almost everything posted it is clear that most animals experiment with food no matter how much food is available and how much they have eaten.

According to the definitions YOU provided animals experiment with food no matter how much is and has been available.


What you mean to say is you would hope that it would be experimentation. Thats not proof. They don't list it as testing food, but here you go with your evolution goggles on making assumptions.

The only one making assumptions is you with your tooth's folly goggles on.

According to the definitions you provided animals experiment with food. That's why I asked you to define the words. I wanted to learn what you have to say and you make it abundantly clear that animals experiment with food.


Animals only experiment with food when they are starving, period.

Not talking about excuses as to why TF is flawed. Animals experiment with food all of the year round regardless of how much food is available. Your own definitions show that to be the case.


I don't mean normal in that way, I mean its not natural from the Target Food perspective.

And that shows TF is wrong. TF doesn't match reality.


That may not be possible for them, maybe they have family to tend to or maybe they are pregnant.

What's with the assumptions? No need to make excuses as to why TF fails.

This is what I wrote.

All I want to be clear on is that it is normal for individuals in a species to have different diets. There is no diet for a species. Diet applies to individuals, not species.

You've already agreed that individual brown bears and mosquitoes have different diets. Then you take a completely about face and say no.

You write

Have you lost your marbles? Anyone that has read any number of diets can see thats not the case.

What is with this two-faced response?


I guess its possible, but I would question the eating dirt part, its not normal and is a sign of hunger.

It's not a sign of hunger. You eat rocks too or you would not live long.


It doesn't matter what the demographics are, we still know thier diet, and if we know their diet, there is no way they are experimenting, especially since the always seem to omit that interesting tale.

So a bear that does not eat fish has the same diet as a bear that does?
A mosquito that eats blood has the same diet as a mosquito that does not eat blood?

You've already provided a definition of diet and habitual and it is clear that this statement you made here must be wrong.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You have stated many times that no one has ever observed a species changing into another species.

But you now claim that when a caterpillar changes into a butterfly it changes into another species.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And you would be wrong, the wiki on it specifically states that the fecal pellets are passed by and the undigested food pelets are reeaten.


You just wrote: "No I think its more that you feel backed into a corner so your trying to rely on semantics to bail you out. "

It's poop. It's eaten. It passes through the GI tract. It comes out as poop. Quit the kiddie arguing and learn something for a change.


I just did, he is obviously eating his own pellets because there is something wrong with his diet.

Another unsubstantiated opinion of no value.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 



NEW MOTTO - DON'T JUST DENY IGNORANCE, FIGHT IT
Mine is don’t just deny ignorance, laugh at it and there is an unending single source of ignorance supplying the comedy on this thread. TF

If you are intent on linking to the past versions of TF perhaps you should devise an indicator like AD and BC say OTF (original tooth folly) CTF (current tooth folly) or CB (crap before) and CC(Current Crap) You're good at that sort of thing so I'll leave it up to you.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I just love how YOUR going to prove me wrong, but the onus is on me. LOL.


I've shown you wrong over a hundred times.

The onus is on you to support tooth's folly. No has to show you wrong, but we all do it nearly every post.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





You just wrote: "No I think its more that you feel backed into a corner so your trying to rely on semantics to bail you out. "

It's poop. It's eaten. It passes through the GI tract. It comes out as poop. Quit the kiddie arguing and learn something for a change.
Thats YOUR interpeatation of it, but the wiki on it clearly states otherwise.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





You have stated many times that no one has ever observed a species changing into another species.

But you now claim that when a caterpillar changes into a butterfly it changes into another species.
I guess there is always an exception to the rule.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats YOUR interpeatation of it, but the wiki on it clearly states otherwise.

Please quote the wiki for me. I believe you are telling a lie.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You have stated many times that no one has ever observed a species changing into another species.

But you now claim that when a caterpillar changes into a butterfly it changes into another species.

Oh WOW! how did I miss that Lulu.


tooth really displays total ignorance of what a species means despite being walked through it many times. He has even linked to a definition of it and still does not have a clue
Classic


He can’t give you a concise definition of diet because he does not understand what a definition is, proved many times.

There is no way he can provide you with a definition of diet, he does not know how.

This is akin to cabbits. So a butterfly has 'four phases of speciation' Egg > Larvae > Pupa > Butterfly

Frogs Have nine phases:-Sperm + Egg > Spawn > Tadpole (with gills) > Tadpole (With no gills) > Tadpole (with back legs) > Tadpole (with four legs) > Froglet (with tail) > Frog

Humans:- Sperm > Egg > Sperm+egg > Embryo (jeeze how many phases until baby) So we see speciation in humans everyday


All that speciation right in front of our eyes every day of the year.
What a clown



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





That makes no sense. You choose multiple different definitions. Do you realize that?
That would be because one term can have many different meanings.




It's a seasonal food that he is resorting to because he is out of target food.

Not looking for your excuses why TF doesn't work. I am asking about diets.
Either way you slice it, it always comes back to the fact that he doesn't have Target Food.




That's just ridiculous. I'm not asking you for excuses as to why TF doesn't work. Let me clarify this for you.

You provide a number of definitions for experimentation. Notice there are multiple different definitions of experimentation in your list. According to almost everything posted it is clear that most animals experiment with food no matter how much food is available and how much they have eaten.

According to the definitions YOU provided animals experiment with food no matter how much is and has been available.
Animals DO NOT experiment with food, if they did you would be able to pose some proof of it.




The only one making assumptions is you with your tooth's folly goggles on.

According to the definitions you provided animals experiment with food. That's why I asked you to define the words. I wanted to learn what you have to say and you make it abundantly clear that animals experiment with food.
Notice how they didn't use the words test or experiment, YOUR WRONG.




Not talking about excuses as to why TF is flawed. Animals experiment with food all of the year round regardless of how much food is available. Your own definitions show that to be the case.
Only if you take Target Food out of context. They experiment with food about as much as you could say that evolution is a creator.




What is with this two-faced response?
I can tell your just really super confused. There is a big difference between what they want to eat and what they have to eat, and what they end up eating.




It's not a sign of hunger. You eat rocks too or you would not live long.
I get nutrients from food, not from rocks.




So a bear that does not eat fish has the same diet as a bear that does?
A mosquito that eats blood has the same diet as a mosquito that does not eat blood?

You've already provided a definition of diet and habitual and it is clear that this statement you made here must be wrong.
Congratulations, you have identified the difference between phase one of hunger and phase two.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



But there is no proof they are suppose to be eating poo, your just assuming.
Seeing as though you have refused to supply the diet for the dung beetle I will do it for you Dung Beetle
The Dung beetle not only eats dung but spends his whole life cycle deep in dung.

Life for the dung beetle really is $hite

Hey tooth you missed another and now with you new definiton of species the dung beetle eats poop through all stages of its speciation
beyond clssic



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



The process by which cecotropes are produced is called "hindgut fermentation". Food passes through the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, where nutrients are initially absorbed ineffectively, and then into the colon. Through reverse peristalsis, the food is forced back into the cecum where it is broken down into simple sugars (i.e. monosaccharides) by bacterial fermentation. The cecotrope then passes through the colon, the anus, and is eliminated by the animal and then reingested. The process occurs 4 to 8 hours after eating. This type of reingestion to obtain more nutrients is similar to the chewing of cud in cattle.


no poop here

It would appear you have made a mistake, the article says NOTHING about him eating poop, just that these cecotropes happend to come from his anus.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join