Science against evolution

reply to post by stereologist

A claim such as tooth's folly is without merit until shown to be plausible. With no supporting evidence it is simply a pointless comment. It isn't a theory. There are no facts upon which it is based. It's just a poorly constructed mess that conflicts with reality.

Not expecting any evidence to support tooth's folly. Until there is it is a meritless fantasy.

Its quite simple actually.

Look up the diet of any species you choose, or better yet, I will choose one for you since these tasks seem to be hard for you. I choose the squirrel.

Now as you can see there is a diet, a clear concise diet. Now you might find variations between listings about what he eats but none the less there is still a diet. What this means is he doesn't experiment with food, so as you can see, YOUR WRONG.

It also means that we know what he eats, So again YOU WERE WRONG.

We know what all species eat, which means that none of them experiment with food, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

Target Food is FIRM, and is all around us, all you have to do is open your eyes. If you were correct, we wouldn't know what the diet of animals is, but we do. So again YOU WERE WRONG!

Animals don't experiment with food, just like the diets fail to mention, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

You can tell from the diets listed that all units of the species eat the same food, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

Not only do they all make the same personal choice but they don't appear to deviate from the diet unless its mentioned, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

There is no experimentation, if there was you would be able to find it in at least one diet, but you can't because YOU ARE WRONG!

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm not understanding you, what the hell is tooths folly?

Exactly what you know it is.

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I read all of the closed thread about TF and feel dumber for it and against better judgment started to read the 500 pages of Collins thread which was amusing at first because the religious folk didn’t know how to handle it. They seemed to not know how to state their case and reverted back to attacking evolution and the OP was explained to where a child could understand. What was the title of the thread before? Seemed like a lot of people were pissed off and you could tell many didn’t even take the time to read the OP before posting. I hate it when people do not read the OP and simply reply to the title.

I skipped to the end of the thread and yup tooth was there in a fantasy world. At what point did he jump in the thread with his fiction.

BTW do you know who would have loved tooth? L.Ron. Hubbard I think he would have polished his ideas and incorporated them in his books. It would have taken a lot of polishing. Shiny turds.

he wouldnt have polished the turd...thats impossible.....He would have just rolled it in glitter.

Anyhoo....you can read highlights from the thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 17-2-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

OMG! That was hilarious!

I forgot about that thread, just goes to show how long in the tooth is The tooth faction is a joke but entertaining in a jester kinda way

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Nope it is you that again has come up short. You cannot explain where or how the water appeared and cannot explain where it went but with no evidence against dismissed evidence supplied to you many times from many posters on this very subject.

The only thing I ever was presented about it, was very questionable. Now I know that doesn't mean much to you considering you have your faith in a very questional belief, however I don't roll that way.

You have again not answered those two simple points

How is your claim 'Aliens transported the water from Mars' credible?

Where did the water go?

As for 'The only thing I ever was presented about it, was very questionable'. Then you should have questioned it and not dismissed it.

And please tell me why you have not addressed the post from Flying Fish on the previous page giving you another explanation?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Now as you can see there is a diet, a clear concise diet. Now you might find variations between listings about what he eats but none the less there is still a diet. What this means is he doesn't experiment with food, so as you can see, YOUR WRONG.

Please post the evidence. So far all you've done here is choose a squirrel and repeat a nonsense comment that a diet means no experimentation. So please post what is the diet and then state that eating anything outside of that diet never happens. Isn't that your claim?

It also means that we know what he eats, So again YOU WERE WRONG.

Do you know what is meant by a diet? Apparently you're as clueless here as with everything else.

Please define what you think is a diet and how that matches what you are reading.

We know what all species eat, which means that none of them experiment with food, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

An idiotic comment at best with no supporting evidence. This is just a worthless opinion. Please back up this statement if you can.

Target Food is FIRM, and is all around us, all you have to do is open your eyes. If you were correct, we wouldn't know what the diet of animals is, but we do. So again YOU WERE WRONG!

Please back up the opinions you have posted.

Animals don't experiment with food, just like the diets fail to mention, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

Please show us any evidence that this is true. We know it is not because heaps of evidence against this nonsense have already been posted. But go ahead post any evidence you think shows that animals do not experiment.

You can tell from the diets listed that all units of the species eat the same food, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

We know that is wrong. But go ahead and show evidence for this worthless opinion of yours.

Not only do they all make the same personal choice but they don't appear to deviate from the diet unless its mentioned, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

Please post evidence for this worthless opinion of yours.

There is no experimentation, if there was you would be able to find it in at least one diet, but you can't because YOU ARE WRONG!

Again no evidence posted, just meritless, worthless, trite opinion.

So make us laugh at you by going through the steps of supplying evidence.

1. Tell us what you think a diet is
2. Pick an animal say a squirrel - identify the species, not something general like a squirrel.
3. Show us what you think its diet is
4. Tell us what foods would constitute experimentation
5. Tells us why differences in diet appear in different sources
6. Tell us why that is not of concern
7. Tell us what makes 2 different foods the same or equivalent in your mind

Write clearly. Use examples. Be specific.

So far you've provided zero evidence. Let's see evidence.

reply to post by itsthetooth
You claim the squirrel is not from here so is not natural. All the items on that list are not from here so not natural.

You claim this planet was artificially prepared so is not natural. Artificially prepared by machinery.

You claim the squirrel and all the items on your list were transported here from somewhere else using machinery so cannot be natural

So the squirrel is not natural, the items on the list are not natural and machinery was involved and they live on a planet that is not natural

When the above is tested against your golden rule, target food fails as always. Your rules say so.

Ergo tooths folly definition of Folly

1. A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight.
2.
a. An act or instance of foolishness: regretted the follies of his youth.
b. A costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome.

As the squirrel would say. Anyway you crack this nut it is still Tooth’s Folly

reply to post by colin42


I looked up tooths folly and didn't find anything. Are you making words up again?

One thing I find fascinating is that evolution is only a by-product of DNA replication.

There has to be a mechanism of cell duplication in order for there to be genetic mutation. So it appears to me that evolution doesn't exist outside of the "DNA/cell division" "life-paradigm."

It raises fascinating questions about how life might work outside of or in a substantially transformed framework.

It also begs the question of what DNA evolved from, and where DNA comes from. Because as much as I can swallow the speciation argument of evolution, I honestly see DNA and evolution as chicken and egg components.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I looked up tooths folly and didn't find anything. Are you making words up again?

As usual... poor research..
Here it is front page google


googl e

reply to post by stereologist

Please post the evidence. So far all you've done here is choose a squirrel and repeat a nonsense comment that a diet means no experimentation. So please post what is the diet and then state that eating anything outside of that diet never happens. Isn't that your claim?

See how lost you are, its not my claim its the authors claim no mine.

The diet is the diet, what ever it may be per species or sub species. You missed the boat again, you seem to think this is a fight about what a diet is and what a diet isn't, and you once again missed the boat. It's not about what the diet is, its about the fact that there is a known diet, you missed the boat again.

Do you know what is meant by a diet? Apparently you're as clueless here as with everything else.

Please define what you think is a diet and how that matches what you are reading.

A diet is what ever a species eats for nutritional reasons.

An idiotic comment at best with no supporting evidence. This is just a worthless opinion. Please back up this statement if you can.


Target Food is FIRM, and is all around us, all you have to do is open your eyes. If you were correct, we wouldn't know what the diet of animals is, but we do. So again YOU WERE WRONG!

Please back up the opinions you have posted.

If it were anymore obvious, it would slap you in the face.

Please show us any evidence that this is true. We know it is not because heaps of evidence against this nonsense have already been posted. But go ahead post any evidence you think shows that animals do not experiment.

I just did, are you not paying attention or are you seriously that dense? If the species has a known diet, then it can't experiment with food, get it ???

You can tell from the diets listed that all units of the species eat the same food, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

We know that is wrong. But go ahead and show evidence for this worthless opinion of yours

The only time this doesn't apply is when that food isn't available in all areas that the species is in, however they would all eat the same food in times that the same food is available to them all.

Not only do they all make the same personal choice but they don't appear to deviate from the diet unless its mentioned, so again YOU WERE WRONG!

Please post evidence for this worthless opinion of yours.

All the evidence you keep asking for is in the diets listed with each species, all you have to do is read it. It will tell you a lot by what we know, but there is also a lot told by whats not being said. For example none of them ever talk about this fantasy experimentation you keep talking about, ever wonder why?

Again no evidence posted, just meritless, worthless, trite opinion.

So make us laugh at you by going through the steps of supplying evidence.

1. Tell us what you think a diet is
2. Pick an animal say a squirrel - identify the species, not something general like a squirrel.
3. Show us what you think its diet is
4. Tell us what foods would constitute experimentation
5. Tells us why differences in diet appear in different sources
6. Tell us why that is not of concern
7. Tell us what makes 2 different foods the same or equivalent in your mind

Write clearly. Use examples. Be specific.

So far you've provided zero evidence. Let's see evidence.

A diet is whatever the species eats. You can pick more specific species if you like, the findings are the same, there is still a known diet. It doesn't matter what I think the diet is, this isn't a game of how you can find supporting things on google that prove a diet wrong, your obviously not getting this. Foods that would be experimentation would be foods that aren't listed on any diet known about them. Differences appear in other places probably because location can change diet. Because its still a known diet. Foods in the same catagory can prove that the species is still eating within its known diet. None of which is Target Food this is all efforts to reach Target Food.

reply to post by itsthetooth

See how lost you are, its not my claim its the authors claim no mine.

The diet is the diet, what ever it may be per species or sub species. You missed the boat again, you seem to think this is a fight about what a diet is and what a diet isn't, and you once again missed the boat. It's not about what the diet is, its about the fact that there is a known diet, you missed the boat again.

Instead of scribbling gibberish you need to define what you mean by diet.

A diet is what ever a species eats for nutritional reasons.

Would that include gastroliths?
Would that include feces?
Would that include water?
Would that include toxins preferentially ingested by an organism?
Would that include sulfur, calcium, magnesium, oxygen, arsenic, copper, iron, or other metabolic requirements.

Please refine your statement.

If it were anymore obvious, it would slap you in the face.

Apparently you are unaware that all you posted was unsubstantiated opinion. Do you understand that now?

I just did, are you not paying attention or are you seriously that dense? If the species has a known diet, then it can't experiment with food, get it ???

The answer is no. You slapped down more opinion without evidence.

The only time this doesn't apply is when that food isn't available in all areas that the species is in, however they would all eat the same food in times that the same food is available to them all.

More useless opinion. Please provide evidence.

All the evidence you keep asking for is in the diets listed with each species, all you have to do is read it. It will tell you a lot by what we know, but there is also a lot told by whats not being said. For example none of them ever talk about this fantasy experimentation you keep talking about, ever wonder why?

Refine your definition of diet. Then list evidence. You are stating nothing but opinion.

A diet is whatever the species eats. You can pick more specific species if you like, the findings are the same, there is still a known diet. It doesn't matter what I think the diet is, this isn't a game of how you can find supporting things on google that prove a diet wrong, your obviously not getting this. Foods that would be experimentation would be foods that aren't listed on any diet known about them. Differences appear in other places probably because location can change diet. Because its still a known diet. Foods in the same catagory can prove that the species is still eating within its known diet. None of which is Target Food this is all efforts to reach Target Food.

The definition for diet given here does not mesh with the definition you gave earlier. They are very different. You need to define what you mean by diet.

Then you need to provide evidence. The new definition you gave for diet is followed by unsubstantiated ramblings.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I looked up tooths folly and didn't find anything. Are you making words up again?

Does not matter if the term is made up or not as unlike your nonsense terms, tooth's folly has been fully defined and the group using it fully understand its meaning something you point blank refused to do.

Funny you missed the part where I again showed the squirrel does not have target food. I am sure you were not trying to avoid it so:


So the squirrel is not natural, the items on the list are not natural and machinery was involved and they live on a planet that is not natural

When the above is tested against your golden rule, target food fails as always. Your rules say so.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You missed the boat again, you seem to think this is a fight about what a diet is and what a diet isn't, and you once again missed the boat.

Nope. He is spot on. You have no idea what your talking about and show you dont have a clue what a diet is

A horse in a field and riden once a week for fun needs a completely different diet than a working horse and again a different diet for a race horse. Same horse three diferent diets.

Now your turn. Please supply the diet of the:

1. Pitcher Plant
2. Rabbit

Originally posted by guanyu
One thing I find fascinating is that evolution is only a by-product of DNA replication.

There has to be a mechanism of cell duplication in order for there to be genetic mutation. So it appears to me that evolution doesn't exist outside of the "DNA/cell division" "life-paradigm."

It raises fascinating questions about how life might work outside of or in a substantially transformed framework.

It also begs the question of what DNA evolved from, and where DNA comes from. Because as much as I can swallow the speciation argument of evolution, I honestly see DNA and evolution as chicken and egg components.

Evolution is a word that describes a process. I say this not to be clever but to help explain.

Without the selection of advantage by the environment it would not matter how the DNA altered. In fact it could mean that the disadvantages were not weeded out causing great harm to the species.

It also needs time without which it the advantage cannot be passed on and established within the group

So again evolution is a process and cannot be understood by looking at one component anymore than you can understand how a cake is baked by just looking at the flour.

Bat brains, bacon and milk are target foods of Great tits, right tooth?

news.bbc.co.uk...

rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org...

reply to post by rhinoceros


At first glance one would assume Great tits would be target food for infants, but according to the article they are quite the opportunists and even are observed learning new feeding behaviors.

reply to post by rhinoceros
How about the exploding toads Exploding animal

Crows attacked the toads to pick through the skin between the amphibian's chest and abdominal cavity, picking out the liver, which appears to be a delicacy for crows in the area.

Is toad liver from living toads on the crow’s diet list or just the crows in that area?

How on earth did they know to do this if they did not experiment? Read a book? Asked a wise owl?

reply to post by stereologist

Instead of scribbling gibberish you need to define what you mean by diet.

I diet is what ever the species eats.

A diet is what ever a species eats for nutritional reasons.

Would that include gastroliths?
Would that include feces?
Would that include water?
Would that include toxins preferentially ingested by an organism?
Would that include sulfur, calcium, magnesium, oxygen, arsenic, copper, iron, or other metabolic requirements.

Please refine your statement.

It depends on if they are a regular part of their regular diet, otherwise they are starving. Feces is not a regular part of anyones diet and I'm waiting to see a diet that proves that wrong. Of course. Come on man, animals are not scientists. Depends on the species.

If it were anymore obvious, it would slap you in the face.

Apparently you are unaware that all you posted was unsubstantiated opinion. Do you understand that now?

Everything I posted was facts substantiated from the observations of diets.

The answer is no. You slapped down more opinion without evidence.

All the diets I observed say YOUR WRONG. And if not then I demand you post the diet the proves me wrong, or have you been searching all this time and just trying to buy time because you cant find any?

Refine your definition of diet. Then list evidence. You are stating nothing but opinion.

Diet is the observed intake of diet.

The definition for diet given here does not mesh with the definition you gave earlier. They are very different. You need to define what you mean by diet.

Then you need to provide evidence. The new definition you gave for diet is followed by unsubstantiated ramblings.

di·et
/ˈdī-it/Noun
1.The kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats.
2.A legislative assembly in certain countries.



Verb
Restrict oneself to small amounts or special kinds of food in order to lose weight: "it is difficult to diet in a house full of cupcakes".

diet google

Thats as defined as its going to get.

reply to post by itsthetooth
PLEASE CAN SOMEONE CHECK TOOTHS DEFINITION LINK AND SEE IF IT LINKS TO THE GOOGLE FRONT PAGE NOT THE DEFINITION OF DIET?

reply to post by itsthetooth

I diet is what ever the species eats.

So you are seelcting the second of the 2 definitions you offered with this one? Is that correct?

Here is the first definition you offered:

A diet is what ever a species eats for nutritional reasons.

1. So nutrition is not a part of the definition?
2. Anything any individual eats is also a part of the diet for the species? For example, plastic bags are often found in coyote feces. Is that a part of the diet of the coyote?
3. Does this covers organic and inorganic materials such as fire ash, resins, dirt, feces, etc.
4. Does this cover everything thing or are you covering only what is eaten by all members of the species?
5. How does this embrace changes as an organism ages?

It depends on if they are a regular part of their regular diet, otherwise they are starving. Feces is not a regular part of anyones diet and I'm waiting to see a diet that proves that wrong. Of course. Come on man, animals are not scientists. Depends on the species.

Dung beetles eat poop. Lots of organisms eat poop. That's why the world isn't covered in poop. It is consumed by organisms. Rabbits eat their own poop. Green pellets are eaten and brown pellets been through twice.

Everything I posted was facts substantiated from the observations of diets.

No facts posted yet. Still trying to get past your definition of diet so that we can get past the rest of the opinions you've posted.

All the diets I observed say YOUR WRONG. And if not then I demand you post the diet the proves me wrong, or have you been searching all this time and just trying to buy time because you cant find any?

All you've posted ever is opinions. What we do know is that you use words very differently from everyone else. Thus we are still trying to pin down what you mean by diet.

Diet is the observed intake of diet.

Meaningless.

Thats as defined as its going to get.

So now you offer a third and very different definition of diet.

Please provide your definition of diet. There have been 3:
1. "I diet is what ever the species eats. "
2. "The kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats"
3. "A diet is what ever a species eats for nutritional reasons. "

Please provide your definition of diet. Then we can address the rest of the opinions and get you to post some evidence.