Target food proves evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I'm still going to take the side that if you were honestly against the idea of target food, you would just produce some ideas for target food for humans to shut me up. However you failed to do so. It's more proof that we aren't from here. When someone as incredulous as yourself is unable to produce even the slightest of an argument, well that pretty much seals it. I would have figured that you would have at least tried.

Likewise then...I am going to take the side that if you were honestly against the idea of evolution, you would just produce some ideas for the evolution of humans to shut me up. However you failed to do so. It's more proof that we evolved here. When someone as incredulous as yourself is unable to produce even the slightest of an argument, well that pretty much seals it. I would have figured that you would have at least tried.

Maybe now you can see what a pathetic argument this is. The only evidence you will accept against your point, is evidence that would actually prove it. Muppet!

reply to post by itsthetooth

What do you mean was we? How about were we, OMG colin go back to school

You claimed you answer all questions and yet here you are not answering again

There is no way, we could have been designed whether you follow evolution or creation, either way we are designed.

So was we designed or not designed? This is the question

Aphids like I said appear to qualify as a target food for ants.

Again. This time read what I wrote.
1. Ants do not eat Aphids. Ants milk Aphids for the honeydew they exude when the ant milks them. So if anything is the ants target food it is honeydew.
2. The ant has to go through many processes to get the honeydew. Something you claim means it cannot be called 'target food'.

Explain with your supporting evidence.

Out of all of the variations of abolone, they ALL eat kelp, and kelp alone.

KELP

Kelps are large seaweeds (algae) belonging to the brown algae (Phaeophyceae) in the order Laminariales. There are about 30 different genera.[citation needed]

What type of kelp does the Abalone eat? (It is spelt Abalone BTW)

Excellent show if target food with no questions.

You have yet to supply an example

Yes of course parakeets eat a varried diet, but like I stated, and you obviously ignored, like you always do, the majority of what they eat is millet.

Nope. You are the one that ignored the reply, supported with evidence. From Connector Statement connector gave after supplying supporting evidence

Not only do parakeets have a large and varied diet (various seeds, fruits, vegetables, grains, proteins from eggs, peanuts,etc) they actual need supplements if they are lacking in one area....??? Isn't that one of your examples why we're not from here? We need supplements? The parakeet IS NOT an example of target food on earth and you fail completely.....try again. Do you just make stuff and think no one will check it?

I would say only you are ignoring the information. Only you deny what is in front of your blank empty stare.

What? evidence to the target food...
Again it is your claim. You provide real evidence There you go, kelp for abolone period.

Ah the old link to Google search ploy. You are so predictable and so pathetic. So you cannot show any evidence of target food. Why am I not surprised.

As you had even mentioned, aphids appear to be a target food for ants, well at least to specific species of ants anyhow.

I have explained quite the opposite. Aphids are not the target food of the ant, if anything is it would be the honeydew but your criteria rules that out.

As you brought it up. Other specific ants 'The leaf cutter Ant' Gathers leaves to compost and grow a crop of fungus on. Do these ants not know according to you they should be eating aphids.
THE ANT

Ants have colonised almost every landmass on Earth. The only places lacking indigenous ants are Antarctica and a few remote or inhospitable islands. Ants thrive in most ecosystems and may form 15–25% of the terrestrial animal biomass.[6] Their success in so many environments has been attributed to their social organisation and their ability to modify habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves. Their long co-evolution with other species has led to mimetic, commensal, parasitic, and mutualistic relationships.[7]

Just like humans. So the ant has no target food either.

As far as the parakeets, I have two different bags of feed, both contain a mixture of seeds and pellets, but the majority always seen on the contents of these bags is millet.

Then you are a cheap skate that puts the health of your Parakeet second and money first. Millet would be the cheap option. Shame on you.

You have been incredulous to the point that you even fib on some of the facts, like claiming that humans live in the wild with all of nature.

And now the straw man ploy. I gave you the Bushman who lives without all the things you claim are vital. I never claimed once that all humans lived that way and again ask you what you mean by 'in the wild'?

Or claiming that human processes are just as good as natural even though I have shared the definition multiple times.

If I bake bread it is a natural process. You could not bake bread if it was not. The fact that you do not have the wit or intelligence to understand this fundamental point is your problem not mine. GET AN EDUCATION.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Dont forget calling the house sparrow a human species relationship while the relationship is actually with the house.

We build the houses it nests in. We farm the land it feeds on. The relationship is with us so again. GET AN EDUCATION.

Or how we supposedly have a tight relationship with wolves, which is why they are illegal to own right?

Your straw man 2. I explained with masses of supporting evidence that the relationship with the wolf goes way back into ancient history. That we bred the dog who is a sub species from the Gray wolf so that relation is even stronger today than ever. Again GET AN EDUCATION.

Or how bees polinating crops counts as a human/bee relationship.

I already explained in full. Here it is in brief. We plant the crops. The bee benefits from a large supply of food in one place. We benefit because their action pollinates the crops increasing the yields. That is a relationship and the fact you cannot understand it means you need to GET AN EDUCATION.

You're always stretching the truth to fit your needs, and trying to make me look bad in the process.

Nope. I and others supply the evidence. Your denial of that evidence is what makes you look bad. Very bad.

It just proves to me more and more that I'm obviously right and your wrong, if you have to stoop to such lows.

(You’re wrong BTW)The fact you see someone that provides evidence backed up by a logical argument 'stooping to such lows' say's more about you than me. Get over it.

No colin, I could see thorugh your lies and deception, you didn't pull anything over my eyes.

See what I mean by you need to GET AN EDUCATION. I gave you the examples you asked for. I backed them up with evidence and offered a logical argument. You deny all and any of the above to ensure you remain steadfastly in ignorance

I'll bet you still believe that if you feed a field mouse at your door, that it means he evolves into a door mouse.

That was your example, not mine. See how it works. I give you facts, evidence and logic and in return you feed me lies and a very jaded opinion and that is putting it nicely.

Let me see ...... I have given you many answers in my posts yet I cannot see one attempt at that from you. So when you claimed you answer ALL questions that was just another lie then.

reply to post by colin42

Evolution has never been proven, and it never can be, get over it and realize that.

The purpose of your thread was to show how 'target food' proves evolution wrong. You have failed epically so the only one that needs to realise it and get over it is little old you.

So you must of missed the part where I just totally debunked the part of evolution claimin that a species will just eat whatever.

Evolution is a such a scam, its almost embarrassing and makes me wonder how many other parts of its theory were just made up and not reverse engineered to test.

Get a new religion is all I can tell you.

What preceded this had nothing to do with you providing the evidence for your statement. If getting a religion means I end up like you I prefer to live without one.

Well you can't keep the one you have, as its quickly falling apart.

1. YOU cannot explain why the anteater is not found everywhere ants are found.

I allready did colin but as usual you don't listen. I told you that the ant obviously has other dealings away from where the anteater lives. Target food is not geographic, nor is it dependant on any symbiotic relationship.

2. YOU cannot explain the fossil record that shows how the anteater evolved

A fossil record doesn't prove conclusivly that there was even a relationship. Thats all in your mind and those types of assumptions are subjective.

3. YOU cannot identify the ants target food

I allready said the aphid was.

4. YOU cannot explain why ants that farm crops and livestock are any different than man farming crops and livestock.

I allready explained its because man uses unnatural processes where ants don't.

YOU cannot even say whether the anteater and the ant are 'from here' yet claim at least one has target food.

Having target food present doesn't prove a species to be indigenious, only the absence of it proves the species was brought here.

YOU cannot explain how those not having target food means they are not from here yet bang on about extinctions which means they could be from here.

Extinctions must always be ruled out otherwise target food will not surface with a correct answer.

YOU cannot explain how target food proves evolution wrong when it does not even show if you are 'from here' whether you have it or not.

Since humans have no target food, there is only one option in this matter, we are not from here.

Your unfounded opinions are not accepted. You made a claim in your title and I expect you to provide EVIDENCE.

The evidence is here, but a blind person must open their eyes to see it.

If species just ate whatever, we would not be able to answer questions like that. But it doesn't shock me that evolution took yet another mindless jab in its horrible made up theory.

Again what preceded the above was total mindless, garbled uneducated nonsense. A species does not eat whatever. It eats what it has evolved to eat that is why lions have big, sharp teeth and the anteater has none. Why fish shoal and animals form herds for protection from predators. Why the ratio of predator to prey can even be seen in the fossil records. You really are clueless.

The fact still remains that there is unity and conformity, with any species and food. If one anteater eats ants, they all eat ants, if one abolone eats kelp, they all eat kelp. Humans are the only species that are able to break down a food source and determine what the next best food would be for nutrition. So I seriously doubt that a species evolving that loses a food source is going be smart enough to just know what the next best thing would be.

As you can see its way more complicated than even evolutionists had ever imagines.

reply to post by colin42

I'm not the one claiming that, scientests are, this is why you can ask what a species eats, and they can deliver an answer.

I have never once seen, read or heard any scientist talk about intended food let alone target food. Show your supporting evidence for your statement above.

Well its quite simple actually. Ask any scientist what a species eats, and they will have an answer for you. The fact that this answer will apply to the entire species is proof that there is some type of intelligence behind how food is chosen. Now if you don't want to believe that, then you have to ask yourself how it is that any given species is smart enough when it does run out of food, to know what the next best thing would be to eat. Humans have to spend hours on research and nutrition facts, but not other species.

The fact that the anteater is a fine tuned machine for harvesting and eating ants, is not an opinion.

Evolution shows with evidence how that fine tuning happens and never once mentions 'target food' or transportation from other planets.

Of course it doesn't because evolution believes that a species will just eat whatever it can, and that is going to be good enough. The problem is if it were true we would not see the same things being eaten within a species. Aside you still have no answer about how the human is not fine tuned for anything specifically.

The fact that humans don't have a target food to speak of is not an opinion.

It is only an opinion and worse still your opinion and will remain so until you can provide evidence showing otherwise. As yet you have failed to provide any proof target food exists. THAT MEANS IT IS JUST YOUR OPINION.

I think its pretty obvious at this point.

The fact that our menu seems to be missing a generous supply of calcium, is obviously not an opinion.

You have had many people explain with supporting evidence how ignorant your statement is made worse by your refusal to understand anything you are told. You have milked the subject to death and been found ignorant every time. Get over it, move on as it is another car crash for you.

So by your reply then you are either admitting that each human is suppose to own a cow, or that drinking another animals milk is perfectly normal and expected to the degree that humans do it. Otherwise your agreeing that a natural selection is more in order so having to eat 5.4 servings of sardines a day is normal. Any selection of any other calcium items will require even more intake of that food to reach the RDA. So which are you choosing?
Supplements? Ha ha.

reply to post by idmonster

Likewise then...I am going to take the side that if you were honestly against the idea of evolution, you would just produce some ideas for the evolution of humans to shut me up. However you failed to do so. It's more proof that we evolved here. When someone as incredulous as yourself is unable to produce even the slightest of an argument, well that pretty much seals it. I would have figured that you would have at least tried.

Maybe now you can see what a pathetic argument this is. The only evidence you will accept against your point, is evidence that would actually prove it. Muppet!

Well if only there were any proof against target food, but there is not. The fact that a species just doesn't eat what ever and always has an identifialbe food source pretty much seals that one.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I have proven your fallacy of "target foods" wrong by pointing out that your claim of calcium is incorrect. That any human living near water (which is all of humanity throughout prehistory) would have fish, and that those living in valleys would have leafy greens.

Someone else pointed out that grains are essentially grasses, and provide the same calcium that cows recieve to output in their milk.

You entire calcium claim has been laid so bare that not only is it itself laughable, but your continued assertions in favor of it eclipse the theory itself in laughability.

I also have provided you with video of mitosis occuring, and explained how evolution is the obvious artifact of DNA recombination during mitosis. You have done absolutely nothing to address this. Matter of fact, you just ignored it altogether and insteaad chose to engage another poster.

This thread should now die the pitiful death it deserves.

reply to post by colin42

1. Ants do not eat Aphids. Ants milk Aphids for the honeydew they exude when the ant milks them. So if anything is the ants target food it is honeydew.
2. The ant has to go through many processes to get the honeydew. Something you claim means it cannot be called 'target food'.

It's still the same result, rather that the honeydew would be the target food. As far as the processes, are any of the processes unnatural?

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=X-ovUKrLCIrWiwKgyYGAAg&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c073 62cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

Here is that definition in case you forgotten it.

What type of kelp does the Abalone eat? (It is spelt Abalone BTW)

I read all types.

I would say only you are ignoring the information. Only you deny what is in front of your blank empty stare.

Millet is still always the main ingredient, in all cases, connector was wrong.

As you brought it up. Other specific ants 'The leaf cutter Ant' Gathers leaves to compost and grow a crop of fungus on. Do these ants not know according to you they should be eating aphids.
THE ANT

Are you serious, you ask a lame question like that and expect an answer. You honestly want to know what leaf cutter ants are suppose to eat. OMG your dense.

Then you are a cheap skate that puts the health of your Parakeet second and money first. Millet would be the cheap option. Shame on you

Actually he prefers the millet.

And now the straw man ploy. I gave you the Bushman who lives without all the things you claim are vital. I never claimed once that all humans lived that way and again ask you what you mean by 'in the wild'?

It means in the wild, are you that dense, or just trying to claim no understnading?

wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.


Adverb: In an uncontrolled manner: "the bad guys shot wild".


Noun: A natural state or uncultivated or uninhabited region: "kiwis are virtually extinct in the wild".


Synonyms: adjective. savage - mad - feral
noun. wilderness - waste

www.google.com...=en&q=wild&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=F-0vUMLoKs_siQKHm4DgBA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c07362c bb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

Its a noun and describes a location

Or claiming that human processes are just as good as natural even though I have shared the definition multiple times.

If I bake bread it is a natural process. You could not bake bread if it was not. The fact that you do not have the wit or intelligence to understand this fundamental point is your problem not mine. GET AN EDUCATION.

Baking bread is NOT a natural process. Baked bread doesn't occur naturaly in the wild so you would be wrong on that one. If you don't stop being an idiot I'm going to open a tread called baking bread is a natural process. That process would not exist if man did not have his hand in it, therefore its not natural.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=-e0vUPWbKsWgiQKJ2IBY&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c 07362cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

Dont forget calling the house sparrow a human species relationship while the relationship is actually with the house.

We build the houses it nests in. We farm the land it feeds on. The relationship is with us so again. GET AN EDUCATION.

You think so smartee? If we didn't build the homes would the house sparrow still come around? No he wouldn't, the relationship is with the house not the person.

Or how we supposedly have a tight relationship with wolves, which is why they are illegal to own right?

Your straw man 2. I explained with masses of supporting evidence that the relationship with the wolf goes way back into ancient history. That we bred the dog who is a sub species from the Gray wolf so that relation is even stronger today than ever. Again GET AN EDUCATION.

That relationship is so strong that its actually illegal to own them. You just don't get it do you.

Or how bees polinating crops counts as a h

reply to post by colin42

Or how bees polinating crops counts as a human/bee relationship.

I already explained in full. Here it is in brief. We plant the crops. The bee benefits from a large supply of food in one place. We benefit because their action pollinates the crops increasing the yields. That is a relationship and the fact you cannot understand it means you need to GET AN EDUCATION.

The relationship is with the crops, not with us. The bees are unaware we are even connected to the crops, get a clue. You just love to stretch things to fit your wild religion.

(You’re wrong BTW)The fact you see someone that provides evidence backed up by a logical argument 'stooping to such lows' say's more about you than me. Get over it.

There is nothing logical about you stretching the truth to fit your horrible religion

I'll bet you still believe that if you feed a field mouse at your door, that it means he evolves into a door mouse.

That was your example, not mine. See how it works. I give you facts, evidence and logic and in return you feed me lies and a very jaded opinion and that is putting it nicely.

Let me see ...... I have given you many answers in my posts yet I cannot see one attempt at that from you. So when you claimed you answer ALL questions that was just another lie then.

You missed the point again. It wasn't about how it was presented, it was the fact that you believed it, your so desperate to find things that point in the direction of evolution that your willing to believe anything.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So you must of missed the part where I just totally debunked the part of evolution claimin that a species will just eat whatever.

Nope. You just chose to ignore where I yet again explained why you did not debunk anything you just talked a load of bunk. Here is my reply AGAIN:

Apart from that you display yet again total ignorance of what Evolution explains. An organism does not evolve alone. Its advantages are spread throughout the group it lives and breeds in and is then selected for by the environment so of course they all eat the same food. How many times do you need this explained? Jeeze get an education.

Here we go with more of your nonsense.

1. YOU cannot explain why the anteater is not found everywhere ants are found.

I allready did colin but as usual you don't listen. I told you that the ant obviously has other dealings away from where the anteater lives. Target food is not geographic, nor is it dependant on any symbiotic relationship.

What the hell is the ants other dealings? Are you still talking English?

You claim the ant is the target food for the Anteater. Ants are found all over the world. Why is the ant eater not found in those same places. Dont tell me, show me your evidence.

2. YOU cannot explain the fossil record that shows how the anteater evolved

A fossil record doesn't prove conclusivly that there was even a relationship. Thats all in your mind and those types of assumptions are subjective.

Again you babble your nonsense. Again you show you never read any of the information spoon fed to you over many pages and again you offer no answer just more of your opinion which is not worth squat.

3. YOU cannot identify the ants target food

I allready said the aphid was.

Yep, you already said. That is your worthless opinion. It does not answer my point that the ant does not eat the aphid, it herds and milks them for the honeydew going through many processes to get it which you claim means it cannot be target food. Explain and show your evidence.

4. YOU cannot explain why ants that farm crops and livestock are any different than man farming crops and livestock.

I allready explained its because man uses unnatural processes where ants don't.

Show me with evidence how man herding and milking dairy cows is any less natural than ants herding and milking aphids. You're not doing well we are on #4 and you still have not answered one question.

5. YOU cannot even say whether the anteater and the ant are 'from here' yet claim at least one has target food.

Having target food present doesn't prove a species to be indigenious, only the absence of it proves the species was brought here.

Again you are talking rubbish because you then go on to write in answer to:

6. YOU cannot explain how those not having target food means they are not from here yet bang on about extinctions which means they could be from here.

Extinctions must always be ruled out otherwise target food will not surface with a correct answer.

So what is it? You contradict yourself in just the space of one line

7. YOU cannot explain how target food proves evolution wrong when it does not even show if you are 'from here' whether you have it or not.

Since humans have no target food, there is only one option in this matter, we are not from here.

How can you maintain this with what you have stated above? Humans target food may have become extinct and seeing as though you do not accept the fossil record you cannot refer to that. see your answer in #2

8. Your unfounded opinions are not accepted. You made a claim in your title and I expect you to provide EVIDENCE.

The evidence is here, but a blind person must open their eyes to see it.

You even fail when you try to appear wise. If a blind person opens their eyes they are still blind. As for the evidence being in this thread the only evidence is for how delude, dishonest, ignorant and uneducated you are.

So again you have not produced one shred of evidence just more of your ignorant opinion. You do not appear to be the man that answers all questions that you maintain you are.

The fact still remains that there is unity and conformity, with any species and food. If one anteater eats ants, they all eat ants, if one abolone eats kelp, they all eat kelp. ......... opinion ............ opinion ......... nothing but tosh.

You failed to address my points again. Just issued your normal sermon.

What a failure you are. Again it’s Abalone not Abolone

A good book to read is 'Nature's IQ'. It clearly shows why the theory of evolution does not fit reality. Even scientists are beginning to admit that the root of everything is spiritual. In their misguided confusion they even got themselves a god particle.

The fact is that there is only one consciousness (mind). We and all other animate and inanimate things are just a part of it. Every living organism was created perfectly to interact with its environment. The Master Architect made no mistakes. We are not the ultimate - the Master Architect (GOD) is.

My advice is to keep on reading and researching. We are are a very dangerous crossroad - the change of the Age.
The misguided New Age people correctly identify it as a time of a consciousness shift. It is not our consciousness that shifts but GOD's.

reply to post by Hawk2012


save your breath. the op is just a troll. once you present irrefutable proof that he is full of baloney, he just ignores you and argues with someone else.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well its quite simple actually.

Oh dear. This looks like you are not going to show your proof just more idiotic opinion.

Ask any scientist what a species eats, and they will have an answer for you. The fact that this answer will apply to the entire species is proof that there is some type of intelligence behind how food is chosen.

Yep, no evidence to back up your claim so no need to read any further.

Of course it doesn't because evolution believes that a species will just eat whatever it can, and that is going to be good enough.

Evolution describes no such thing. You want it to but it does not. GET AN EDUCATION.

The problem is if it were true we would not see the same things being eaten within a species. Aside you still have no answer about how the human is not fine tuned for anything specifically.

The problem you have is there is a huge variation in diet with a species and a quick search will show that that very fact One example

I think its pretty obvious at this point.

That is not an answer. The only thing that is obvious is you do not have any answers just your pathetic baseless opinion.

So by your reply then you are either admitting that each human is suppose to own a cow,

Even with your shot to pieces brain how did you get that from what I wrote and linked you to?

or that drinking another animals milk is perfectly normal and expected to the degree that humans do it.

And ants. Don’t forget ants.

What followed is more of your opinionated rubbish that has been burned many times. I refer you back to those.

So yet again no answers just your opinions. I will assume you have none and you have lost yet again.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's still the same result, rather that the honeydew would be the target food. As far as the processes, are any of the processes unnatural?

You keep posting your link to natural and yet have no idea what it means, hilarious. The ant goes through processes to get the honeydew. Man goes through processes to get milk. Neither use magic or perform unnatural practices. I keep recommending. GET AN EDUCATION

I read all types.

You read what you want to see, so that did not go well then evident by you yet again giving no answer.

Millet is still always the main ingredient, in all cases, connector was wrong.

Connector gave you a link and quotes from that link. You are saying the link was wrong. Show the counter evidence that proves you correct not your usual one line dismissal as above.

I wrote: As you brought it up. Other specific ants 'The leaf cutter Ant', gathers leaves to compost and grow a crop of fungus on. Do these ants not know according to you they should be eating aphids?
Your pathetic reply:

Are you serious, you ask a lame question like that and expect an answer. You honestly want to know what leaf cutter ants are suppose to eat. OMG your dense.

Coming from a clown that writes about animals using cell phones I think your answer is just another of a long line of avoiding answers. I know what a leaf cutter ant eats, do you?

Actually he prefers the millet.

Yeah right he told you so right. As you have maintained over many pages your parakeet is captive and suffers from the intervention of man and worse you. Millet is cheap filler. I know parakeets don’t talk but it appears yours does. No doubt it also say's GET AN EDUCATION (squawk) GET AN EDUCATION

It means in the wild, are you that dense, or just trying to claim no understnading?

I have explained many times that you have to put the use of 'in the wild' into context. Something you have no concept of. Supplying your over used link to wild does not do that. How many times do I need to say GET AN EDUCATION?

Baking bread is NOT a natural process. Baked bread doesn't occur naturaly in the wild so you would be wrong on that one.

You bake bread using a living organism, yeast. If you did not give the yeast a natural environment within the dough you would not get bread. Jeeze you really need to GET AN EDUCATION.

If you don't stop being an idiot I'm going to open a tread called baking bread is a natural process.

Why don’t you do that?

That process would not exist if man did not have his hand in it, therefore its not natural.

How pathetic and ignorant is that answer You desperately need to GET AN EDUCATION

You think so smartee? If we didn't build the homes would the house sparrow still come around? No he wouldn't, the relationship is with the house not the person.

If we did not provide the nesting sites for the house sparrow we would not see the house sparrow, it would be extinct. It relies on us building houses. That is a relationship. GET AN EDUCATION

That relationship is so strong that its actually illegal to own them. You just don't get it do you.

You are the one that purposely does not get it. The dog is a sub species of the Gray Wolf. We bred the dog from the Gray Wolf. The relationship spans back from the dog to the original wolves. A long and close relationship that only you can deny. An education will not solve that ignorance.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The relationship is with the crops, not with us. The bees are unaware we are even connected to the crops, get a clue. You just love to stretch things to fit your wild religion.

You really need to GET AN EDUCATION

There is nothing logical about you stretching the truth to fit your horrible religion

See my reply above

You missed the point again. It wasn't about how it was presented, it was the fact that you believed it, your so desperate to find things that point in the direction of evolution that your willing to believe anything.

(it’s you’re willing BTW)Nope. You are lying again to make your fantasy fit your lie. The only one here that is showing desperation is you. The only one showcasing ignorance and dishonesty is you.

All you are being asked is to supply the evidence for your claims and because you cannot you go through all the dishonesty and avoidance evident here and in the other thread. Now that is pathetic.

reply to post by colin42

Nope. You just chose to ignore where I yet again explained why you did not debunk anything you just talked a load of bunk. Here is my reply AGAIN:

Apart from that you display yet again total ignorance of what Evolution explains. An organism does not evolve alone. Its advantages are spread throughout the group it lives and breeds in and is then selected for by the environment so of course they all eat the same food. How many times do you need this explained? Jeeze get an education.

Sure but that still doesn't explain WHY they all eat the same food.

Is it evolution that tells them what to eat, is it instinct, is it cosmic dust, is it a creator, what tells them to all eat the same things, is it the likeness of the food, and if so how come we never see them experimenting until the come to that conclusion.

There is a guiding element present, and that element is in line with would be best for them to eat, which is the basis of target food.

Here we go with more of your nonsense.

1. YOU cannot explain why the anteater is not found everywhere ants are found.

Unless there is only a specific type of ant that the anteater eats, there is no geological differences tied to target food.

I allready did colin but as usual you don't listen. I told you that the ant obviously has other dealings away from where the anteater lives. Target food is not geographic, nor is it dependant on any symbiotic relationship.

What the hell is the ants other dealings? Are you still talking English?

Let me sum this up in case you missed it. The anteater has specific ears that can hear ants in the ground, he has a specific snout that can smell the ants in the ground, he has specific claws that are perfect for tearing up ant farms, and he has a specific tounge for grabbing ants from deep places. In case you once again missed what this means, he was obviously designed to hunt and kill ants and termites. Now you can believe what you want at this point that its evolution that reared him for all of this or you can believe a creator did it, either way there was obviously planning and thought put into this . Now since evolution can't think seeing how its just a process, that sort of bumps it out of the picture which leaves that there were possibly a creator involved in his creation, design, and how he would eat and interact with his surroundings.

You claim the ant is the target food for the Anteater. Ants are found all over the world. Why is the ant eater not found in those same places. Dont tell me, show me your evidence.

There could be many reasons for this. First of all the ant might not only have one predator, second there are different species of ants that could explain this as well. There is also the possibility that a secondary food item that is required by the anteater is not available in those other areas. So you see there is many possibilites. It could also be that the climate of those other regions don't support the anteater as well. So your question is really a loaded question, and as usual you demand answers when you know full and well there is no one answer.

2. YOU cannot explain the fossil record that shows how the anteater evolved

Fossil records can't show evolution, all they can show is a variation of a species which could be explained different creations, or instances of where gametic isolation failed. Either way, claiming that fossils prove evolution is pure speculation and its not proof by any means. You have to prove it.

I allready said the aphid was.


Yep, you already said. That is your worthless opinion. It does not answer my point that the ant does not eat the aphid, it herds and milks them for the honeydew going through many processes to get it which you claim means it cannot be target food. Explain and show your evidence.

Well the fact that the ant naturally farms the aphid for honeydew I think makes it pretty obvious that its a target food.

Now a better one still to expose is the abalone. Kelp is it's only food source, on a rare occasion it will eat its own poop but kelp is the ideal Target food. Not to be confused with the idea that its the only food period. A target food doesn't have to be the one and only food for a species, but it could be.

4. YOU cannot explain why ants that farm crops and livestock are any different than man farming crops and livestock.

Well they aren't using unnatural processes is why.

I allready explained its because man uses unnatural processes where ants don't.

Show me with evidence how man herding and milking dairy cows is any less natural than ants herding and milking aphids. You're not doing well we are on #4 and you still have not answered one question.

Well

reply to post by colin42

I allready explained its because man uses unnatural processes where ants don't.

Show me with evidence how man herding and milking dairy cows is any less natural than ants herding and milking aphids. You're not doing well we are on #4 and you still have not answered one question.

Well first your making an assumption that cows milk was intended for humans to consume. So I would like to first of all know what is it about cows milk that makes you so sure that it was intended for humans to consume. Now this could be what it offers in terms of nutrients, it could be its accessability, it could be any reason in the world, I want to know what led you to drink from the cow. Saying that you found it on a shelf in the store doesn't cover it.

The next problem is that unless you plan on keeping your own personal cow, you will be faced with the redundant processes of pastureization, homogenization, and fortifying it like we do today. These processes are deemed not only unnatural but redundant, as there are so many of them. Remember that if man makes it or causes it, its not considered natural.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=cBkwUL7XD8voiwKq0oHQAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c073 62cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

Now on the reverse side reading up about aphids and how they are farmed by ants, I don't see anything in the article that indicates that any of the steps the ant takes as being unnatural or even odd for that matter.

en.wikipedia.org...

So there you have it. This is why humans farming cows is not considered natural while ants farming aphids is.

5. YOU cannot even say whether the anteater and the ant are 'from here' yet claim at least one has target food.

Sure, its all entirely possible because your forgetting that target food doesn't prove your from here, it can only prove that your not from here.

It is a good idea to assume that ants and anteaters are from the same place.

Again you are talking rubbish because you then go on to write in answer to:

6. YOU cannot explain how those not having target food means they are not from here yet bang on about extinctions which means they could be from here.

Thats exactly why its so important to rule that out.

So what is it? You contradict yourself in just the space of one line

7. YOU cannot explain how target food proves evolution wrong when it does not even show if you are 'from here' whether you have it or not.

If you don't have it, and you have ruled out extinctions, then there is only one answer, your not from here.

As with humans, we have no natural relationship with any species unless its provoked and maintaind which you have admitted to via the house sparrow, the bee and crops, and the wolves which are illegal to own. The bottom line is unless we act out, and do what we do, we would never see your alegid relationship with them. I made it clear that manipulated relationships don't count, as we can make just about any species have a relationship with us if we just feed them. It's not natural.

Since humans have no target food, there is only one option in this matter, we are not from here.

How can you maintain this with what you have stated above? Humans target food may have become extinct and seeing as though you do not accept the fossil record you cannot refer to that. see your answer in #2

We are very aggressive about keeping tabs on things that dissapear from this planet. If there ever was a target food that would obviously knock the pants off of anything we have ever eaten, do you think it would have been presented in our history.

You even fail when you try to appear wise. If a blind person opens their eyes they are still blind. As for the evidence being in this thread the only evidence is for how delude, dishonest, ignorant and uneducated you are.

What I was trying to tell you colin is that you only pretend to be blind when all you have to do is open your eyes.

reply to post by colin42

So again you have not produced one shred of evidence just more of your ignorant opinion. You do not appear to be the man that answers all questions that you maintain you are.


The fact still remains that there is unity and conformity, with any species and food. If one anteater eats ants, they all eat ants, if one abolone eats kelp, they all eat kelp. ......... opinion ............ opinion ......... nothing but tosh.

You failed to address my points again. Just issued your normal sermon.

What a failure you are. Again it’s Abalone not Abolone

Abalone alone proves target food just like anteaters and ants.

The proof is in front of your face. You can't explain why it is they all know what to eat, as though the food was made specifically for them. You can't even claim that they all have their own thought process as they all eat the same thing. How is this managed? There is obviously a lot of intelligence behind how all of this works because evolution sure doesn't explain it.

reply to post by Hawk2012

A good book to read is 'Nature's IQ'. It clearly shows why the theory of evolution does not fit reality. Even scientists are beginning to admit that the root of everything is spiritual. In their misguided confusion they even got themselves a god particle.

The fact is that there is only one consciousness (mind). We and all other animate and inanimate things are just a part of it. Every living organism was created perfectly to interact with its environment. The Master Architect made no mistakes. We are not the ultimate - the Master Architect (GOD) is.

My advice is to keep on reading and researching. We are are a very dangerous crossroad - the change of the Age.
The misguided New Age people correctly identify it as a time of a consciousness shift. It is not our consciousness that shifts but GOD's.

There are just to many things that show that there is some type of intelligence behind all of this. Even in the idea of evolution supposedly rendering over a billion species, evolutionists deny that its a creator, then what is it.

IMO anything that makes over a billion species is the ideal definition of a creator, but youll never get evoltuionists to admitt to that. If each species has what appears to be assigned food, and each species automatically knows what to eat and what not to eat, there is even yet again intelligence behind the workings of life. Evolution claims that a species will move on and just eat what ever when there is extinctions, however even in that instance, there is still a pattern that is uniform with the species alike. It's so complicated that there is no way there is not intelligence behind it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

save your breath. the op is just a troll. once you present irrefutable proof that he is full of baloney, he just ignores you and argues with someone else.

The only thing you ever presented to me was that we are going to have to eat 12 servings of calcium just to keep our calcium up. The problem is you only usually eat about 9 servings total in a day, so where are you suppose to find room?

So I pointed out that at least sardins are higher in calcium but even then you will have to eat 5.4 sevings a day.

You never commented on my replies, you just went on on ignored anything I proved you wrong with, I seriously doubt that you can call that iffefutable proof.