How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 27
21
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Actually its your faut for bickering and no keeping by the title. So much so that you even took it upon yourself to rename Target Food.

Tooth's Folly is an appropriate name and the preferred name for an idea that makes no sense at all and is based on willful lies by its only believer.




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



How would you know its MY PERSONAL ignorance, if you know about it?

It's your ignorance that is the basis of your arguments.

You either did not read the link or were not able to understand the content.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Tooth's Folly is an appropriate name and the preferred name for an idea that makes no sense at all and is based on willful lies by its only believer.
Its just a prime example of your childish way to try to cope with being defeated. Because you surely cant win an argument through conventional methods, so you have to create alternate ways to cope with the truth.

As an example, you stated that Deer experiment with food while your unable to produce any diet that indicates so. You have made an assumption based on your own ignorance, that Deer experiment based on the contents of the diet. The problem that you have totally overlooked is the fact that if anything is listed in a diet, period, its proof that its not experimentation unless its specifically stated. So again you are WRONG.

You also listed that the bear has alternate diets. The problem is that you need to first ask yourself how you came into posession of this knowledge. The fact is that you looked it up. Which means its already known, which means its all standard part of their diet, which means that your once again WRONG. I had already indicated that demographics can alter diet based on whats available and whats not, however given the choice, the species would eat the same thing, and thats a fact jack.

Maybe you should stick to cracking jokes, ya, your better at that.




It's your ignorance that is the basis of your arguments.

You either did not read the link or were not able to understand the content.
But how would you know, its MY ignorance. I take it this is to in depth for you to understand.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




As an example, you stated that Deer experiment with food while your unable to produce any diet that indicates so. You have made an assumption based on your own ignorance, that Deer experiment based on the contents of the diet. The problem that you have totally overlooked is the fact that if anything is listed in a diet, period, its proof that its not experimentation unless its specifically stated. So again you are WRONG.

The point is simple and I will repeat it for you since you refuse to learn. According to you definition of a diet, eating anything in a diet would not be experimenting. I've pointed that out repeatedly. Thanks for repeating what I have been saying. Here you admit that your question is nonsense.

Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance available to them.


You also listed that the bear has alternate diets. The problem is that you need to first ask yourself how you came into posession of this knowledge. The fact is that you looked it up. Which means its already known, which means its all standard part of their diet, which means that your once again WRONG. I had already indicated that demographics can alter diet based on whats available and whats not, however given the choice, the species would eat the same thing, and thats a fact jack.

False. Here you lie. You admitted that not all bear have the same diet.

Why the constant lying? The answer is that Tooth's Folly is a lie. You are posting a hoax at ATS which is against the T&C.


But how would you know, its MY ignorance. I take it this is to in depth for you to understand.

Clearly, the link was over your head. Too bad, but if you try again you might be able to learn the material.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


TOOTH, YOU ARE RUINING THIS SUB-FORUM FOR THE MANY READERS OF ATS.

MODS - I AM SURPRISED YOU ALL CONTINUE TO ALLOW TOOTH TO LIE, AND LIE, AND LIE, AND LIE SOME MORE.

Please clean up this forum, mods.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 




Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance available to them.

This is true...
You can ask anyone who hunts or has any experience in the real world. Go to any of the hundreds of hunting forums and look up dear baiting or eating habits and the sky's the limit for what dear will experiment with.

Here are just a few things hunters have used to bait dear.
Bread, watermelon rinds, marsh mellows, peppermints bananas,rock salt, vanilla extract, peanut butter, Chocolate M&M's, garlic n pepper, grape koolaid, apple juice concentrate, bacon, eggs, fish, bananas, Zagnut Bar and much more!

There is no target food they are opportunist just like most everything on the planet.
Tooth is just troll baiting.... plain and simple!



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I don't care if you put a dirty diaper out there and they eat it, there is an obvious difference between domesticated animals, or animals that we feed, versus what they eat in the wild.

Just because I'm able to get my parakeet to eat top ramon doesn't mean hes experimenting with food.

Due to the fact that you know what the deer eat, that means its in his known diet, moreso that its probably in the fact that hes an herbivore, which usually means they eat most things in that group. Simply means we know that he eats these things, therefore hes not experimenting.

I don't know if you have caught on at this point what this exactly means, but unless an animal is starving, we always know what he typically eats, therefore there can't be such a thing as an experimental diet. Epic fail.

Again I can feed my parakeet top ramon, that first of all doesn't mean that its food that is good for him, or that its food he prefers, or that its a second choice by any means. All it means is that I introduced it to him, probably at a time that he was hungry, and he tried it. But I had to practically put it in his mouth otherwise he had no interest in it.

If you dictate what a animal eats, that by no means indicates that its his target food. If he chooses what your offerng over his typicall food that either means that the new food is closer to his target food, or your introducing it at a time that he is hungry. The only reason an animal would quit a regular diet for new food and refuse to go back to the old food is because the new food is closer to his target food.

Animals will automatically choose the closest food they can find to whats suppose to be thier target food. This is also why a starving animal will eat just about anything, out of desperation they still have an order in what they are looking for.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
It's obvious you have no clue with this babble.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





The point is simple and I will repeat it for you since you refuse to learn. According to you definition of a diet, eating anything in a diet would not be experimenting. I've pointed that out repeatedly. Thanks for repeating what I have been saying. Here you admit that your question is nonsense.

Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance available to them.
Then the question becomes what exactly do you mean by experiment. And where did you learn of this? From a magazine, the bible, the internet? Whats experimenting to you? Is it because he eats such a large selection of different things? Or is it that he takes a small bite out of one thing and then trys another?




False. Here you lie. You admitted that not all bear have the same diet.

Why the constant lying? The answer is that Tooth's Folly is a lie. You are posting a hoax at ATS which is against the T&C.
Hoax hell. I have always posted that demographics can limit the choices of a diet. How on earth would you expect a bear to eat salmon if he doesn't live around any water? DUH.




Clearly, the link was over your head. Too bad, but if you try again you might be able to learn the material.
Evolution is clearly a hoax. No one has ever produced evidence that a species changes into another species. No one has ever produced evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes. It's such a cheap crock, and you buy it, hook line and sinker.

There isn't even any evidence that a species could change into another species if it wanted to. It's all in your imagination. If species evolved the way you believe they do, our DNA would sure in the hell look a lot different than it does and we would have proof in that DNA of evolving from other species, but we don't. We have to many things that are not accountable. For example humans have a rare blood type that isn't found on any other living thing on this planet. Where the hell did that come from. Are you going to tell me that blood types evolve too. Cause if you are, you need to rush down to your local hospital and inform them that while we have never had any new emerging blood types your sure it was evolution that caused this.


We have to many species that had to have evolved correct the first time with no mistakes, with changes that clearly couldn't have happened with one ancestor. It's just not possible.

In addition we would see new species popping up all the time, but since we have been on the look out, aside from some basic changes in viruses, and small organisims, that can easily be understood through adaptation not evolution.

Evolution would have to be a super intense master mind to make the changes to life that it does. Or if you want to go with the thought that its not a living being, its just a process, there is no proof that all said changes are all a part of this giant theory known as evolution, there is simply no proof, other than in the authors mind.

Evolution has the ability to create over a billion species, but its not called a creator, ya right, what you smoking?
Evolution has the ability to make changes to DNA which is actually a tricky process even by todays standards, and requires lab technicians with sophisticated equipment, along with the know how, but evolution knows how to do it all naturally with no brains behind it, right, what you smoking?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





TOOTH, YOU ARE RUINING THIS SUB-FORUM FOR THE MANY READERS OF ATS.

MODS - I AM SURPRISED YOU ALL CONTINUE TO ALLOW TOOTH TO LIE, AND LIE, AND LIE, AND LIE SOME MORE.

Please clean up this forum, mods.
That would be because no one has proven me to be lying about anything, and in fact I have owned up to providing enough valuable information that proves my point to be the truth.

What do you think this is suppose to be confusion42,s list of claims only?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't care if you put a dirty diaper out there and they eat it, there is an obvious difference between domesticated animals, or animals that we feed, versus what they eat in the wild.

Just because I'm able to get my parakeet to eat top ramon doesn't mean hes experimenting with food.

Of course the parakeet is experimenting with food if they eat ramen. That would be an instance of experimenting when NOT starving. You proved yourself wrong. Not the first time you've done it.


Due to the fact that you know what the deer eat, that means its in his known diet, moreso that its probably in the fact that hes an herbivore, which usually means they eat most things in that group. Simply means we know that he eats these things, therefore hes not experimenting.

You are violating your own definition of diet. Not surprised. You continue to lie in almost every post.


I don't know if you have caught on at this point what this exactly means, but unless an animal is starving, we always know what he typically eats, therefore there can't be such a thing as an experimental diet. Epic fail.

Your own parakeet example proves you are wrong.


Again I can feed my parakeet top ramon, that first of all doesn't mean that its food that is good for him, or that its food he prefers, or that its a second choice by any means. All it means is that I introduced it to him, probably at a time that he was hungry, and he tried it. But I had to practically put it in his mouth otherwise he had no interest in it.

Animals cannot tell if food is good them. I doubt you can tell if it is good for the parakeet.

So now you have no idea if the parakeet was hungry or not? Now you want to back out of your little story. Why bring it up in the first place? It seems that you just want your little tale to end up being a meaningless tale. That matches what you normally write.


If you dictate what a animal eats, that by no means indicates that its his target food. If he chooses what your offerng over his typicall food that either means that the new food is closer to his target food, or your introducing it at a time that he is hungry. The only reason an animal would quit a regular diet for new food and refuse to go back to the old food is because the new food is closer to his target food.

There is no such thing as target food.If you think there is you need to present at least one piece of evidence. Right now all we have is your folly, Tooth's Folly.


Animals will automatically choose the closest food they can find to whats suppose to be thier target food. This is also why a starving animal will eat just about anything, out of desperation they still have an order in what they are looking for.

Unsubstantiated gibberish



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The thing that I find amusing, is that the people in the scientific community that laugh at any thought of a "God", are the same people that believe there can be millions of different lifeforms out in the universe. With many different chemical make-ups. And they also think mant of these lifeforms could be millions or billions of years more advanced than us. So, God could very well be just a very advanced and powerful lifeform.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Then the question becomes what exactly do you mean by experiment. And where did you learn of this? From a magazine, the bible, the internet? Whats experimenting to you? Is it because he eats such a large selection of different things? Or is it that he takes a small bite out of one thing and then trys another?

The onus is on you to clarify Tooth's Folly. You tell us what you mean by experiment.

Where did I learn about animals experimenting with food? First hand observation. You have zero first hand knowledge of these issues, which is why you are 99.9999% wrong.

You still need to provide the first piece of evidence to support Tooth's Folly.


Hoax hell. I have always posted that demographics can limit the choices of a diet. How on earth would you expect a bear to eat salmon if he doesn't live around any water? DUH.

Thus you admit that you repeatedly lie about your folly. You have repeatedly stated that all members of a specie eat the same food. That is a lie, not a mistaken because right here you show that you are aware of this.

You are promoting a hoax.


Evolution is clearly a hoax. No one has ever produced evidence that a species changes into another species. No one has ever produced evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes. It's such a cheap crock, and you buy it, hook line and sinker.

More argument from personal ignorance.


There isn't even any evidence that a species could change into another species if it wanted to.

Once again you demonstrate that you do not know what evolution is as used by science.


If species evolved the way you believe they do, our DNA would sure in the hell look a lot different than it does and we would have proof in that DNA of evolving from other species, but we don't.

More unsubstantiated gibberish about the DNA being different. There is ample evidence in DNA of evolution.


For example humans have a rare blood type that isn't found on any other living thing on this planet. Where the hell did that come from. Are you going to tell me that blood types evolve too. Cause if you are, you need to rush down to your local hospital and inform them that while we have never had any new emerging blood types your sure it was evolution that caused this.

More argument from personal ignorance. Humans evolve. Part of that change can be blood types.


We have to many species that had to have evolved correct the first time with no mistakes, with changes that clearly couldn't have happened with one ancestor. It's just not possible.

Another logical fallacy: an appeal to incredulity.


In addition we would see new species popping up all the time, but since we have been on the look out, aside from some basic changes in viruses, and small organisims, that can easily be understood through adaptation not evolution.

New species are discovered all of the time. How do you know those are not newly evolved species?


Evolution would have to be a super intense master mind to make the changes to life that it does. Or if you want to go with the thought that its not a living being, its just a process, there is no proof that all said changes are all a part of this giant theory known as evolution, there is simply no proof, other than in the authors mind.

Again you show that you have no idea what evolution is according to science.


Evolution has the ability to create over a billion species, but its not called a creator, ya right, what you smoking?

Again you show that you are clueless as to what evolution is.


Evolution has the ability to make changes to DNA which is actually a tricky process even by todays standards, and requires lab technicians with sophisticated equipment, along with the know how, but evolution knows how to do it all naturally with no brains behind it, right, what you smoking?

Clueless with each part of the post. Please take the time to learn the meaning of evolution as used in science to avoid posting long winded meaningless nonsense.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That would be because no one has proven me to be lying about anything, and in fact I have owned up to providing enough valuable information that proves my point to be the truth.

You lied about species not being able to change into other species.

You claimed that a caterpillar changing into a butterfly was an example of a species changing into another species. You stated that while being adamant that no one had ever observed a species changing into another species.

That has to be one of the most amazing lies.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Does a caterpiller become another species after metamorphosis or is it just a caterpiller, with wings? Dun dun dun...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthBlizzard
 


You'll have to ask Tooth why he claimed that a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is one species changing into another. I tried to give him the chance to back out, but tooth insisted that is what was happening.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





You lied about species not being able to change into other species.

You claimed that a caterpillar changing into a butterfly was an example of a species changing into another species. You stated that while being adamant that no one had ever observed a species changing into another species.

That has to be one of the most amazing lies.
Who in their right mind would make such a claim, you do know I was being sarcastic?

Species don't change into another species but it has to be your best example so far.

So from this point forward I'm going to hold you responsible for trying to present it as though they change into another species.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





The onus is on you to clarify Tooth's Folly. You tell us what you mean by experiment.
It's no longer on me once you started to answer about it. Besides I never wrote anything called Tooth's Folly.




Where did I learn about animals experimenting with food? First hand observation. You have zero first hand knowledge of these issues, which is why you are 99.9999% wrong.
So as a first hand observer, your claiming to have a preconcieved diet about all the species your talking about, so much so that you just automatically know what they are suppose to eat. I call BS on this.

If you know anything about any diet its either because its domesticated which doesn't count, or you learned about it in some way, again I'm calling BS on your claims. There is no way you can be psycic and automatically know everyones diet.




You still need to provide the first piece of evidence to support Tooth's Folly.
I'm not working with or making any claims about anything called Tooths folly.




Thus you admit that you repeatedly lie about your folly. You have repeatedly stated that all members of a specie eat the same food. That is a lie, not a mistaken because right here you show that you are aware of this.

You are promoting a hoax.
I don't have a folly. All units of a species do eat the same food, and just because male and female mosquitoes don't first of all doesn't mean I'm wrong, thats why I said all units of a species, as in male units or female units. Your welcome to go back and read what I wrote and see for yourself. Even if I was wrong, which I'm not, mosquitoes don't speak for the rest of all species as they do. Again your wrong.

But this is where evolution is at. You can't win an argument by being honest so you try to move the goal posts or think you can win on a technicality. It's just shows how poor your skills are, because you knew good and well what I was saying. Just like when you tried to pass off rabbits off as eaters of poo, they actually aren't eating poo they are reeating undigested food, but again, leave it to an evolutionist to try to win a debate on stretching the truth.




Once again you demonstrate that you do not know what evolution is as used by science.
Evolution might be falsly used by science but I'm not aware of anything.




More unsubstantiated gibberish about the DNA being different. There is ample evidence in DNA of evolution.
Thats such a loaded crock of crap, DNA does NOT support the theory of evolution, if it did, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion right now. There is NO PROOF that any changes EVER found are part of an organised process called evolution.




More argument from personal ignorance. Humans evolve. Part of that change can be blood types.
Your evolution is sounding more and more like a replacement for what would be a god.




New species are discovered all of the time. How do you know those are not newly evolved species?
Because their DNA never indicates so.




Again you show that you have no idea what evolution is according to science.
The only realm that evolution has in science is in the pretend corner.




Again you show that you are clueless as to what evolution is.
I know evolution better than you do, and IMO, it would have to be a super genius to pull off the miracles that it does.




Clueless with each part of the post. Please take the time to learn the meaning of evolution as used in science to avoid posting long winded meaningless nonsense.
Evolution is not used in science other than it being mistaken for adaptability.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Of course the parakeet is experimenting with food if they eat ramen. That would be an instance of experimenting when NOT starving. You proved yourself wrong. Not the first time you've done it.
Forcing a parakeet to eat ramon is not the same as experimenting, I can see why you totally don't get this.




You are violating your own definition of diet. Not surprised. You continue to lie in almost every post.
Nope, it just tells me that you didn't understand it in the begining, and that you still don't. Don't try to tell me I have my own definition wrong, YOU DIDNT MAKE IT UP, I DID.




Your own parakeet example proves you are wrong.
Only in your mind, because you would honestly think that force feeding an animal would be the same as him choosing the food. I can see now why your so off on all of this. You don't have a clue.




Animals cannot tell if food is good them. I doubt you can tell if it is good for the parakeet.
Which happens to be the epic fail in your belief that species will just eat what ever. You should be starting to realize now not only that your wrong, but the biggest reason that proves you wong.




So now you have no idea if the parakeet was hungry or not? Now you want to back out of your little story. Why bring it up in the first place? It seems that you just want your little tale to end up being a meaningless tale. That matches what you normally write.
Thats because you failed to understand something else I pointed out weeks ago, and that is that any species that is not eating target food, is in a phase of hunger. There is a reason why its called a phase of hunger, can you figure it out.




There is no such thing as target food.If you think there is you need to present at least one piece of evidence. Right now all we have is your folly, Tooth's Folly.
I don't have, nor have a written a folly, thats all in your imagination, something that evolutionists frequently over use. Target Food is not in abundance on this planet, thats for sure.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Who in their right mind would make such a claim, you do know I was being sarcastic?

Species don't change into another species but it has to be your best example so far.

So from this point forward I'm going to hold you responsible for trying to present it as though they change into another species.

You lie again. it was not my example. I was asking about the diet change between life cycles changes in animals and you made that claim.

You were not being sarcastic. You lie and lie and lie. Everyone reading the thread knows that you cannot stop telling lies.






top topics



 
21
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join