Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

True but only intelligence explains how these animals know what they are eating. Heck we have to use a labratory to know what we are eating, how is it that they automatically know?

False on all statements. This has already been proven wrong.

Species are clearly being directed to know what to eat, now you can claim its simple instinct, but who programmed the instinct?

Repetition of these lies does not change them from being lies. These have already been proven false inthis thread.

reply to post by itsthetooth

True but they are still staying in the same food group. Its an attempt to stay on target food.

Please provide proof that the animals are staying in the same food group. I do not believe you.

Target foods remains a fantasy. No evidence has been given.

In some links I posted on colins thread about ADHD, you would be found to be wrong. ADHD has been identified as changing our genes. Now you might call that evolution but the problem is that they were also able to identify what actually caused all this.

A change in a gene is not evolution unless that gene becomes a part of the species gene pool. If it does then evolution has occurred.

So in essence what you are telling me is that because women smoke when they are pregnant, they are forcing evolution.

If smoking leads to a change in the gene pool then that condition drives changes and thus is a part of evolution.

This sounds like a case study thus throwing this claim of yours into extreme doubt. Science no longer uses case studies and has not for decades.

reply to post by buddhasystem

It's pretty educational to study the history of avocado. It developed in co-evolution with giant sloths. No, it was not a "target food", but an encounter of a species that needed seed dispersal (avocado) and another species who needed calories and nutrients (the giant sloth).

What does avocado have to do with a sloth?

reply to post by stereologist

Simple, if taste was the determining factor in food selection, there would be a varied acceptance, and there isn't.

You have no evidence for your position. You say there isn't, but like many of your claims it amounts to you making things up. Evidence has been posted showing that this is wrong.

It doesn't matter, if decision was left up to the individual, there would be individual choices, and there is not. They all eat the same diet. Explain that.

A doubt that chicks eat everything they peck at, but they do eat their own fecal matter.

Here is a discussion of treating chicks since they do eat everything they peck at including their own poop.


Exactly, what is this something that seems to be sharing intelligent information with species that tells them what they are suppose to be eating.

Its trial and error or they learn it from their parents. It's not what they are supposed to eat. It is what they learn to eat.
www.dummies.com...

These can also be signs of desperation where the species is picking up anything to satisfy hunger. It can also be that their natural enviroment had a way of making sure that food was always above where they pooped. You have to take into account that they may not be in their enviroment.

Animals eat a wide variety. Animals do not agree to like the same food. Where did you get that odd idea?

The observations of diets have proven that they always eat the same things.

Essentially you don't know and made a guess. You are also limiting the senses to a few. Even humans have more senses than you list.

It doesn't matter, the final choice was determined prior to the species locating the food. You see there is no way they could all like the exact same food, so therefore the choice is not being left up to them.

Drop a pebble into water and a fish will go after it and taste it if it has a chance. Fish go after lures even if they look like nothing in their environment. The lure is a new food and the fish will try to bite it. Do all animals eat the same thing? No. Deer in different parts of the country must eat different plants since there are different plants in different areas. Your argument is based on falsehoods.

If you were correct that little section in articles about species called diet wouldn't exist.

The claim that animals of a single species all eat the same thing is obviously wrong. Animals do not eat the same things across their own lifespan. Moose in Wyoming do not encounter the same plants as moose in Maine. Sessile feeders eat whatever passes by them and it can be just about anything. Benthic scavengers eat whatever rains down from the surface.

Again if you change the enviroment of course the diet will technically change, but the species will try to keep the same diet by staying in the same food group.

There is no assumption that animals have a means to communicate. It is well demonstrated that animals can communicate with each other from insects to birds to mammals. Pack animals learn from the pack how to hunt. Herd animals learn from the herd

Except that if individuals in a species are all eating the same food, they are either programmed through intelligence which your denying or they have some method to communicate in a very technical way.

We don't even know all species let alone their diets. This is a completely wrong claim.

Any species that we know the diet of, is constant with the species as a whole. All species eat the same within a species.

That is a falsehood. That is completely untrue.

I know thats what everyone is saying, its just that no one is coughing up any proof.

I reviewed the wiki about chickens and found nothing to support your claims, not that wiki is god, but there seems to be no proof about chickens pecking at anything, if they do, they could be starving.

You are arguing from ignorance.
www.fallacyfiles.org...

Either way, I found no proof they eat their own poop, so it looks like the logical fallacy is upon you.

It's an unknown, that seems to share intelligence. We know it exists because there is no evidence of species randomly experimenting with food or having seperate personal choice in the foods they allegedly try.

This is a lie. Evidence has been supplied showing abalone, chickens, deer, fish, crustaceans, barnacles, amphibians, and other animals experiment with food. Read the thread or just admit you continue to tell lies.

This is what I keep hearing in the form of an opinion, but I have yet to see anything from a credible source claiming that its true.

reply to post by stereologist

Taste is not the determining factor in the choice of food as there would be personal differences and there is none.

Please provide evidence for your claim. I simply do not believe you.

Any and all senses used to determine what is food and what is not food would always require a prior knowledge beforehand, therefore intelligence. The sense are not the determining factor in deciding what is proper food as there would always be personal opinion choosing differently within a species group, which is not the case.

This is based on your previous statement which is not believable.

Do all humans eat the exact same food?

But how did the first species learn if no one was there to teach them, and how did they come to realize that the food chosen is also the best for them?

Prove that the foods animals eat are the best for them. I do not believe that is true. In fact the most nutritious foods can lead to the deaths of animals due to acidosis.

The food is only nutritious when its target food.

The wikipedia is an introductory text. to argue that the information does not appear in the wikiipedia is unfounded. This is an argument form called personal ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

Ya but what your saying is that all the wiki pages are missing diet information. Prove it.

This is where everything has just bit you in the rump. Everyone else is wrong and you are right, and there is no way for you to prove that.

Again, where is your evidence that this is correct? It is fairly obvious that you made this up. Another way of stating this is that you have constructed a fantasy that is not a part of reality.

There is no proof that all wiki pages, or even a single one for that matter, is incomplete or failing to include the part that says a species deviates from the known diet. We always know what they eat.

Nothing is missing a fantasy.

Target food is not a construct of varied foods and food groups, its a concise diet that gives the consumer everything it needs probably in just a few foods.

Who taught them the first time?

Their parents. Themselves.

Oh I see so the very first time was granted by some magical epiphany that told the species what to eat, what it looks like, what it smells like, and what it tasts like, and this of course locked in the choice to make sure that they would in fact be eating the right food for the correct nutrients. Only problem is who programmed the epiphany?

Usually such an argument is based on the close minded approach of the creationist that thinks there has to be a start to a process. In that start there is a lonely first individual. No. That is not reality. The evolving, i.e. adapting and changing, population adjusts to new challenges. So do the foods. They too adapt and change. There is no target food. There are changing foods out there and changing consumers.

Which is another fallacy of evolution. What is a new species suppose to eat once it emerges into the world. I have heard two things. The first is that it just eats what it used to before, which is a load of crap because what I eat looks nothing like what an anteater eats, or the new species just trys out new food untill it finds some that it likes. If this were true we would see species always trying new food. It would be noted and highlighted as the experimentation phase of a species but we have no such thing, and if you argue we do, I want to see where this is in writting, not from your opinion.

Individuals in a population do not all eat the same foods. They can't when a species is spread across a wide distribution. An elephant in Namibia cannot be eating the same foods as an elephant in the Congo.

How is that for a reality check?

Of course, they can't, but I'll be they keep it in the same food group trying to stay on target food.

Humans appear well after dinosaurs went extinct. Humans appear well after trilobites went extinct. So what? There are many hominid fossils showing the evolutionary past of modern humans.

There is more proof that says we were brought here in biblical times according to the bible. Not that there wasn't allready some humans here, in addition to there being many varied species here.

What we do know is that the stories from the bible are for the most part stories. No exodus. No genesis. No flood. None of that happened.

The great flood may have been limited to locations that were only at certain altituides. In other words not all of the land was under water. Genesis is a classic alien abduction scenerio if you have any experience reading into these things. Your speculate that none of it happend. It was witnessed by many people. There wa

reply to post by stereologist

What we do know is that the stories from the bible are for the most part stories. No exodus. No genesis. No flood. None of that happened.

There were a lot of people that aided in the construction of the bible. People witnessed supernatural events that to this day are in high debate. IMO it was the whole reason the documented it, because it was so amazing.

Repeating a falsehood does not change it. It still is wrong. Your inference is also invalid as explained many many many times before.

All you can do is say that I'm repeating a falshood but you can't seem to tackle the explanation of why it is they all eat the same thing. Probably because I'm right.

I have been following the thread and you have not posted that link before. I checked it out and you are clearly misrepresenting the blog. The sentence suggests that our home is with god. The sermon states that Earth is just a temporary place for our souls.

I see so the other parts in the bible that also talk about aliens and different planets were just a coincidence as well I guess.

You took this from "Sermons Preached at Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church, Charlotte, NC." Here is what the Presbyterian church has to say about evolution.

Hey target food inadvertantly proves evolution wrong, its not my fault.

You quote from a church that accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory and this statement is dated 1969. That means that for over 50 years the Presbyterian church has supported evolution as a scientific theory not in conflict with the bible.

This is proof that you purposely and thoughtlessly have misrepresented the sermon you linked to.

That is false, religion does not believe we evolved here on this planet, they believe we were placed here.

Another fantasy with no supporting evidence.

If you don't believe in this, then you must believe that all animals have personal choice when it comes to food, so I must ask, why don't they choose? They all eat the same food, provided of course they are in the same element. Do only humans have personal choice?

Abalone eat a wide range of foods and their diet changes over the life time of the animal.

Abalone eat seaweed and kelp, thats it.
abalone

Abalone are normally found on rocks near food sources (kelp). An abalone iron is used to pry the abalone from the rock before it can fully clamp down.

I'm sorry but I was unable to find anything that indicated that abalone have diets that change over a lifespan of the animal, I was also unable to find anything that indicated they eat a wide range of things.
Your really looking like the person that any scientist needs to know about diet because you seem to have the inside scoop on every species we have talked about so far.

Your not doing to bad your just epically failing at proving what the mechanism is that is choosing food, or how it knows what to choose, or how it knows what not to choose, or how they are all choosing it as a species.

The means has been explained many times beginning with morphological considerations to digestive considerations. Discussions have also lit upon the mobility of the animals.

But again your once again leaving the decision up to the individual, which means personal choice which means different choices, and we don't see that. They all eat a concise diet. Please prove that wrong.

You argument is based on arguing from incredulity and arguing from ignorance, two logical fallacies. In the case of evolution it is a process. Billions of species have existed. Probably true. But evolution isn't a creator. It is the change observed. The search for a mythical creator is not needed. Evolution is a process that produces a variety of lifeforms and the process does so without intelligence or guidance.

Who said you have to have a creature...
creator

cre·a·tor/krēˈātər/Noun: 1.A person or thing that brings something into existence.
2.Used as a name for God.

As you can see, evolution qualifies as being a thing. No god is needed. Evolution creates new species, therefore it is by all definition, a creator.

reply to post by Varemia

Tooth will simply write that he knows what food is best, and that what he perceives as "target food" would allow humans to live forever with no diseases. It's completely ridiculous and founded on zero logic.

It's like he's never seen a sick animal before. He thinks that if an animal eats only what he thinks it should eat, then it will never have a health problem

Thats an unfair comparison. Humans have way more things that go wrong with them them by comparison. The order is not even in the same ball park. We have more sickness, more disease, more health problems period.

reply to post by stereologist

You did move the goal posts after days and days of posting in which none of these arguments appeared until it sunk in that animals do eat rocks and animals do eat dirt. Now you want to pretend that you meant something else. No one here is accepting this baloney story of retelling the thread. You are at this point telling another lie instead of simply admitting a mistake.

I didn't move them, you did. I had always meant random rocks, not specifically salt or minerals, its just another classic example of you evolutionitsts trying to move the goal posts.

I produced links showing that the diet of deer and abalone and squirrels was larger than what was found in the wikipedia. To say that did not happen is another lie.

I never saw them.

You've proved nothing in this thread. You have lied for the third time in your post.

Evolution does not change genes. Evolution is the changes, not the cause or a force, or a creator, or any of the other numerous misrepresentations you have claimed. Read the first sentence from the wikipedia - your favorite resource.

DNA is listed in that list of changes. Evolutionists have always maintained that DNA changes through evolution. Of course this means that our entire understanding of DNA used for forensics and paternity which is obviously no longer valid in the eyes of evolution.

I've already posted a link to a peer reviewed article on snails. There are links to chicks already posted and abalone, and deer.

I saw the chicks one and nothing supported your claims.

This is the fourth lie in this post. The experimentation evidence has been produced numerous times.

Experimentation has never been proven to be a standard part of any diet for any species, at any time.

You claimed to be open minded because you believe in something inane. That is not what being open minded means.

True but you would have to be open minded to believe in such things.

It is clear that you did not go back and check the thread. You also did not read the links on the first time. You are free to believe in a liar like Pye. It takes very little research to find out what a liar Pye is.

I have watched Pyes work for hours, his work is solid, and he is highly intelligent.

Google does not use tags.

No but the sites do.

In other words you used random with in a vague and meaningless way. Thanks.

Only if by meaningless you mean nothing specific.

The only 1 making this odd and seemingly pointless assertion is you. It has nothing to do with anything to date other than an invalid excuse to cover a mistake. You were and continue to be wrong that animals do not eat rocks. They do.

Then you should have no problem in finding several diets that clearly indicate rocks to be a standard part of their diet, and I don't mean mineral licks.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What by? Where is the evidence for your assumption?

Simple, if taste was the determining factor in food selection, there would be a varied acceptance, and there isn't.

I see no links, no supporting evidence as you were asked to supply. Do that.

What we really know is the complete opposite of your unfounded claim. A chick will peck at anything until it learns what is food and what is not food. There are countless examples of this that have been observed and documented.

Now thats a good observation, but is there anything that proves they actually eat everything they peck at, and then after trying it, make a decistion.

I told you they PECK at anything until they learn what is and is not food.

What is this 'something' and show evidence that this something even exists.

Exactly, what is this something that seems to be sharing intelligent information with species that tells them what they are suppose to be eating.

Nope, Nope, Nope. I asked for evidence as I have had a gut full of your opinion

So you ignore the taste also tells the animal what is good and what is enjoyable to eat and you still have not explained why a section of the tongue recognises the taste of salt.

If you are correct, please explain how it is that humans have such a varied diet mostly on personal taste while animals seem to all agree on liking the same food?

Why would I explain your fallacy?

There is a section of the tounge that is better able to detect salt, a section that is better able to detect sour, and a section that is better able to detect sweets.

At last well done. Now answer why the tongue has these regions

So you admitt that somehow eyesight and smell must be the determining factor, especially since thats all thats left

Do you actually read the posts you reply too???????????????????

I have told you now at least 5 times that taste does not locate the food so are you now admitting you finally understand what I wrote in those posts?

The only problem is that within that, you are still leaving the personal factor of choice in the equation, which is obviously a fail.

What? what?

We just don't see animals making personal choices about food, or if they are, they all just so happen to match within a species.

What poppycock. We see it every day. Please stop giving me your opinion as it is always wrong and more often than not completely wrong as above. Show your evidence.

Proof is not supplied by something being obvious. Pond water is obviously green. Research will show you that the water has no colour it is the algae that is green.

But if the algae is green, it in turn makes the water appear green. So your not seeing the water your seeing the algae, but its still green.

Oh please stop. Even in this you are wrong and my point was to illustrate proof is not supplied by what is obvious. The colouration in the water is the alga suspended in it. The water still has no colour.

Now start supplying the evidence you have been continuously asked for.

You cannot even supply the name of the 'something' that directs. Do that.

That is the million dollar question

And I have asked for the million dollar answer your title claims you have. WHERE IS IT?

It's not any more signigicant than calcium, water, or air either.

And by default it is no less significant. So why it is acceptable for you to spend page after page writing fallacy's about calcium but you refuse to accept salt as a valid on topic subject?

See my post on the anteater. They are taught by their parents another common theme we share with ALL higher animals.

There is nothing, no proof to support the idea that all species do in fact do this.

You are obviously wrong because I have posted evidence that supports my statement above.

You are assuming first off that all animals have a complex communication structure, your also assuming that all species have the ability to learn in complex ways, do you have something that proves this to be true?

Nope. I supplied supporting evidence it is you that is making the assumption they don’t based on your opinion that flies in the face of observable and well documented evidence.

If you were correct in your observation we would still see individuality in species, and we do not.

What like this shark? There are many examples you just will not look.

This link is an example of something being wrong with a species.

You claimed we do not see this. A 2 sec search proves you wrong. Show your evidence that supports your latest claim.

The fact that all species have a known diet that can't be explained, is proof enough.

Nope. Only evidence is enough and the above is not that.

reply to post by itsthetooth
This post by you contained no evidence from you. Ignored

reply to post by itsthetooth

The know exactly what they are looking for as the food also matched their needs. We rarely hear about animals dying from malnutrition, at least that its not common.

What do you base that on. Here is just one link that shows how wrong you are Wiki -Plains Zebra
Even with parental protection, up to 50% of zebra foals are taken by predation, disease, and starvation each year

They are obviously missing target food.

We have already been through what you consider as being obvious does not constitute evidence.

Your claim was 'we rarely hear about animals dying of malnutrition.' My reply shows you are very wrong.

As your link indicates there are examples of the parents teaching the young how to eat. This is a form of adaptation which means that instinct has failed either due to extinctions or being moved out of the element.

Nope. My link shows that parents teach their young what to and what not to eat. The rest of your reply is based on nothing but your preconceived opinion and as usual you have nothing to support that opinion.

Well sure I do, the absence of your claims from any diet I have found.

Again. Where is the evidence that supports your claim? All I see is more wrong opinion.

That is not what has been observed and documented many times with countless species so unless you have any supporting evidence your answer is again based solely on your predetermined opinion and is therefore not acceptable

Who taught them the first time?

Who created your creator?

Oh dear oh dear. The detectors are sight, smell and in some instances sound. Animals searching for food is probably the number one documented habit so how you can write the above is beyond me.

Which all results in the the species coming to a final conclusion of what it likes to eat.

WHOOPEE!! Yep the individuals decide what it likes to eat through teaching by its parents, availability and experimentation

reply to post by itsthetooth
Tooth somehow you appear to have missed this post and knowing how you love everthing anteater I thought I would give you another chance to comment.

Look what I stumbled upon.

Ceiba Foundation - Tamandua

Anteaters spend a lot of time teaching their young how to live off this specialized diet.

And also from the same paragraph

The youngster gradually learns the techniques for finding nests, tearing them open, sucking the ants and larvae from inside, withdrawing once defensive soldiers appear, and maintaining a map of feeding sites that it has visited.

This does not look good for a so called target food.

Finally, anteaters have a very low metabolism compared to other mammals of their size, an adaptation thought to help them survive on a nearly pure diet of ants and termites, which provide a regular but not rich source of calories.

So far from knowing its intended food and being pre progammed it seems your flag ship needs to learn how to survive on the diet it has adapted to eat.

reply to post by itsthetooth


you must have missed this question again:

tooth

One simple question. What is the target food of the common rat?

Wiki Rat

reply to post by itsthetooth

It doesn't matter, if decision was left up to the individual, there would be individual choices, and there is not. They all eat the same diet. Explain that.

But that isn't the case. These animals are not all eating the exact same foods as you claim. In many cases they can't due to their geographic distribution. Please explain to me how an elephant in Namibia eats the same foods an elephant in the Congo. They simply can't.

These can also be signs of desperation where the species is picking up anything to satisfy hunger. It can also be that their natural enviroment had a way of making sure that food was always above where they pooped. You have to take into account that they may not be in their enviroment.

Chicks in their natural environment behave the same there as on a farm. If you knew their natural environment then you would not be making these sorts of obviously false statements.

The observations of diets have proven that they always eat the same things.

That's not true and has been proven in this thread. Elephants is one example. Deer in the US is another example. Your claim is wrong. It's been proven.

It doesn't matter, the final choice was determined prior to the species locating the food. You see there is no way they could all like the exact same food, so therefore the choice is not being left up to them.

These are statements not based on reality that you have made up to support this fantasy you call target foods. In fact, this is so jumbled it seems you probably have no idea what you meant to make up.

If you were correct that little section in articles about species called diet wouldn't exist.

Meaningless and pointless.

Again if you change the enviroment of course the diet will technically change, but the species will try to keep the same diet by staying in the same food group.

This simply supports the fact that target foods do not exist.

Except that if individuals in a species are all eating the same food, they are either programmed through intelligence which your denying or they have some method to communicate in a very technical way.

This is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of choice. It is also a logical fallacy because it begins with a false statement.

I know thats what everyone is saying, its just that no one is coughing up any proof.

The onus is on you to provide evidence for your fantasy called target foods. Not onepiece of evidence has been supplied.

This is a hoax thread.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Either way, I found no proof they eat their own poop, so it looks like the logical fallacy is upon you.

This is a logical fallacy called arguing from personal ignorance.

Not 1 piece of evidence has been offered to support target foods.

Mods please close this thread as it is a willful hoax.

reply to post by itsthetooth


[quotes]Any and all senses used to determine what is food and what is not food would always require a prior knowledge beforehand, therefore intelligence. The sense are not the determining factor in deciding what is proper food as there would always be personal opinion choosing differently within a species group, which is not the case.
False. Numerous cases of animals experimenting with food from snails to deer to squirrels to abalone to chicks to filter feeders have been presented.

Do all humans eat the exact same food?

No. Elephants, deer, and all of the other examples show that no animals do that.

The food is only nutritious when its target food.

Another statement with no evidence.

Ya but what your saying is that all the wiki pages are missing diet information. Prove it.

Proved in the case of deer, squirrels, abalone, and anteaters. Case closed.

This is where everything has just bit you in the rump. Everyone else is wrong and you are right, and there is no way for you to prove that.

Everyone in this thread states that you are wrong and has produced evidence showing you are wrong. You too have produced evidence showing you are wrong.

There is no proof that all wiki pages, or even a single one for that matter, is incomplete or failing to include the part that says a species deviates from the known diet. We always know what they eat.

That is a simple inference based on the diets being incomplete for deer, squirrels, abalone, and anteaters.

Target food is not a construct of varied foods and food groups, its a concise diet that gives the consumer everything it needs probably in just a few foods.

You provide nothing more than a fantasy. Where is the first piece of evidence?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Either way, I found no proof they eat their own poop, so it looks like the logical fallacy is upon you.

This is a logical fallacy called arguing from personal ignorance.

Not 1 piece of evidence has been offered to support target foods.

Mods please close this thread as it is a willful hoax.

tooth. You cannot have looked very hard as there is even a word for it. Coprophagia

Coprophagia /kɒp.rə.ˈfeɪ.dʒi.ə/[1] or coprophagy is the consumption of feces, from the Greek κόπρος copros, "feces" and φαγεῖν phagein, "to eat". Many animal species practice coprophagia as a matter of course; other species do not normally consume feces but may do so under unusual conditions.

So as you can see you are very wrong again.

This quote also shows how wrong your target food nonsense really is:

Young elephants, pandas, koalas, and hippos eat the feces of their mothers or other animals in the herd to obtain the bacteria required to properly digest vegetation found on the savanna and in the jungle.[4] When they are born, their intestines do not contain these bacteria (they are completely sterile). Without them, they would be unable to obtain any nutritional value from plants.

Note it says they need to eat the feces of the mother or other animals to be able to obtain any nutritional value from plants. What is the diet listed for them? you got it, plants.

So they eat it and your target food is in it.

BTW Stereo it is not a HOAX its a SKUNK

reply to post by itsthetooth

Which is another fallacy of evolution. What is a new species suppose to eat once it emerges into the world. I have heard two things. The first is that it just eats what it used to before, which is a load of crap because what I eat looks nothing like what an anteater eats, or the new species just trys out new food untill it finds some that it likes. If this were true we would see species always trying new food. It would be noted and highlighted as the experimentation phase of a species but we have no such thing, and if you argue we do, I want to see where this is in writting, not from your opinion.

This is a logical fallacy called arguing from personal ignorance.

Of course, they can't, but I'll be they keep it in the same food group trying to stay on target food.

Provide evidence for the existence of target foods.

There is more proof that says we were brought here in biblical times according to the bible. Not that there wasn't allready some humans here, in addition to there being many varied species here.

The bible is not a trustable document.

The great flood may have been limited to locations that were only at certain altituides. In other words not all of the land was under water. Genesis is a classic alien abduction scenerio if you have any experience reading into these things. Your speculate that none of it happend. It was witnessed by many people.

The bible is a bronze age fairy tale much of it borrowed from earlier tales. There are no witnesses.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There were a lot of people that aided in the construction of the bible. People witnessed supernatural events that to this day are in high debate. IMO it was the whole reason the documented it, because it was so amazing.

Exodus, the flood, Genesis never happened. The bible is a bronze age fairy tale.

All you can do is say that I'm repeating a falshood but you can't seem to tackle the explanation of why it is they all eat the same thing. Probably because I'm right.

Read the thread for many examples of this being a falsehood.

I see so the other parts in the bible that also talk about aliens and different planets were just a coincidence as well I guess.

False claims with no supporting evidence and you lied about the link.

Hey target food inadvertantly proves evolution wrong, its not my fault.

The thread is clearly a hoax. I will ask the mods to close it.

That is false, religion does not believe we evolved here on this planet, they believe we were placed here.

Not according tot he Presbyterians as I pointed out. When you decided to lie by quoting from the Presbyterian church you made a big mistake.

If you don't believe in this, then you must believe that all animals have personal choice when it comes to food, so I must ask, why don't they choose? They all eat the same food, provided of course they are in the same element. Do only humans have personal choice?

Arguing from personal ignorance and also telling falsehoods.

Abalone eat seaweed and kelp, thats it.

A lie. I already supplied evidence of the incompleteness of the diet.

I'm sorry but I was unable to find anything that indicated that abalone have diets that change over a lifespan of the animal, I was also unable to find anything that indicated they eat a wide range of things.
Your really looking like the person that any scientist needs to know about diet because you seem to have the inside scoop on every species we have talked about so far.

Arguing from personal ignorance. I already provided the evidence.

But again your once again leaving the decision up to the individual, which means personal choice which means different choices, and we don't see that. They all eat a concise diet. Please prove that wrong.

Repeatedly proved wrong.

As you can see, evolution qualifies as being a thing. No god is needed. Evolution creates new species, therefore it is by all definition, a creator.

Arguing from personal ignorance. You are also willfully misrepresenting.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats an unfair comparison. Humans have way more things that go wrong with them them by comparison. The order is not even in the same ball park. We have more sickness, more disease, more health problems period.

Argument based on personal ignorance.