... ...
I don't believe that SV40 was injected into the plebs specifically to cause cancer...but I don't rule it out either.
... Again 0 evidence that some entity somewhere is making all vaccines harmful on purpose. Zero evidence. Can you not read? Or can you simply not understand the concept of not believing something somewhere in between 100% and 0%. If the latter, you are certainly not alone. This inability among the sheeple is one of the primary features that social engineers rely on to do their work. 'School' should promote this ability to entertain and analyze a variety of hypotheses but it seems to have the opposite effect. For some reason... If harmful ingredients were deliberately allowed to be a part of some vaccines in order to achieve a certain result which some powerful people desired, then finding harmful ingredients in the vaccine absolutely is 'evidence'. Is it 'proof'? No it is not. This should be 'analysis 101', but almost nobody seems to be able to comprehend this simple logic. Oh well. You would need to find evidence that those people allowed harmful ingredients on purpose and you would have to prove who those people are and not just 1 vaccine somewhere in the world but most of them. I don't think it's illogical to think that somewhere someone allowed a harmful ingredient or two to make the vaccine faster or cheaper or whatever but even then that's not what you and others are talking about. You are talking about a group of people who deliberately make harmful vaccines to KILL people. |
|
|
|
...
Similarly, inject people with SV40 virus along with their polio vaccine and watch cancer rates explode. Who would have thunk that either?
Actually, we don't have to guess. The 'elite' back in the day were obsessed with the problem of their 'cattle' outliving their useful life as workers due to better sanitation and nutrition. I don't believe that SV40 was injected into the plebs specifically to cause cancer...but I don't rule it out either.
Oh so now vaccines give you cancer? I thought they made you dumb, which one is it? Or maybe autism? Maybe all of them huh? Dude, even the pro-vaxxers admit that SV40 is associated with cancer and was part of the polio vaccine for a long time. How you can claim such an authority on the subject but be totally unaware of some of these basic scientific facts is amazing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40As I said earlier, miscellaneous viruses are along for the ride in a lot of vaccines due to the technology by which they are manufactured. Often they are first discovered some time after the vaccine had already been labeled as 'safe and effective' and been being injected into the sheeple for years. Here's one of the fathers of modern vaccines talking about discovering SV40 virus in polio vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uGWut6IRfA''The hypothesis that SV40 might cause cancer in humans has been a particularly controversial area of research'' Clear evidence right here guys! First of all, even if 1 vaccine caused cancer or other problems, how do you go from that to the government is making vaccines to cause bad things on purpose to kill some of the population? It's medicine dude, wake up, in the real world all drugs have side effects, even fucking paracetamol has side effects. What about Ibuprofen? They are also considered safe and harmless but they really aren't. We can't do better for now, all drugs usually have side effects even though for the most part you will not feel or experience them. Again 0 evidence that some entity somewhere is making all vaccines harmful on purpose. Zero evidence. |
|
|
|
I'm sure you have a lot of statistics to back this up. Humans live far longer now than 100 years ago so it's clearly not working.  Infectious diseases are a bit less likely today, just a bit, heh. You can believe your delusion as much as you want but you can't argue with statistics. You do have a knack for coming up with charts that prove my points... OK, make it so sewers flow underground and people don't die of infectious disease as much. Who would have thunk it? Similarly, inject people with SV40 virus along with their polio vaccine and watch cancer rates explode. Who would have thunk that either? Actually, we don't have to guess. The 'elite' back in the day were obsessed with the problem of their 'cattle' outliving their useful life as workers due to better sanitation and nutrition. I don't believe that SV40 was injected into the plebs specifically to cause cancer...but I don't rule it out either. Oh so now vaccines give you cancer? I thought they made you dumb, which one is it? Or maybe autism? Maybe all of them huh? |
|
|
|
I'm sure you have a lot of statistics to back this up. Humans live far longer now than 100 years ago so it's clearly not working. Infectious diseases are a bit less likely today, just a bit, heh. You can believe your delusion as much as you want but you can't argue with statistics. Too bad those people back then didn't have better hygiene so that they could have avoided all those diseases. Too bad we who have hygiene are fixated on poisoning ourselves with modern medicine. If we weren't, we could bring all of those those charts down to near zero.  It doesn't matter if you think it's because of hygiene or not, if you think they are poisoning us, why all statistics show that we have less diseases now? If they are trying to kill us why has the lifespan increased so much? If you want to argue about health issues, you should be more concerned about food and obesity which is clearly one of the top factors when it comes to deaths considering the top causes of death are heart disease and cancer which are heavily related to obesity and overall diet and drugs. |
|
|
|
does that mean the government is making them like that on purpose to kill us or whatever you think they are doing?
They don't want to kill you, they just want you dumbed down and a subservient tax paying sheep who follows all their rules and is a good little boy or girl. With Obamacare even poor people are wildly profitable to the medical/industrial complex. They can overcharge the shit out of poor people and those 20% of us who make good money but are not part of a large corporation will foot the bill. By force. So, there is an incentive to make the sheeple chronically ill via vaccines as well as dumbed down and pacified. I'm sure you have a lot of statistics to back this up. Humans live far longer now than 100 years ago so it's clearly not working. Infectious diseases are a bit less likely today, just a bit, heh. You can believe your delusion as much as you want but you can't argue with statistics. |
|
|
|
''What would make it real would be some proof for evolution found in the things that are real. So far, no proof... just a bunch of "yelling" that evolution is real.'' I gave you proof of what you asked but you always go to another argument when confronted with the truth. What would be enough evidence for you, badecker? Just tell me and I will provide it.
All you gave me is the same old blab that can't be confirmed as truth or fact. What everybody is looking for is evolution proof that is not adaptation or like-begets like. Tell me precisely what you would consider evidence for evolution and I will provide it, but don't puss out like you always do, don't ignore the evidence. As so often, you quote it but then ask it again. Your problem seems to be that you can't read. Or do you have ADHD, and you forgot your Ritalin? Actually it doesn't matter what I think. The scientific community by maintaining evolution in theory form shows that they don't know it is fact. Actually, evolution theory is so weak that it doesn't deserve to even be considered a theory. The only science besides science fiction that is in ETE is, political science. This is where a bunch of ignorant people or trolls think that they can make a physical science form exist by blabbing about it a lot. Afraid to ask for specific evidence? I see... |
|
|
|
''What would make it real would be some proof for evolution found in the things that are real. So far, no proof... just a bunch of "yelling" that evolution is real.'' I gave you proof of what you asked but you always go to another argument when confronted with the truth. What would be enough evidence for you, badecker? Just tell me and I will provide it.
All you gave me is the same old blab that can't be confirmed as truth or fact. What everybody is looking for is evolution proof that is not adaptation or like-begets like. Tell me precisely what you would consider evidence for evolution and I will provide it, but don't puss out like you always do, don't ignore the evidence. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind debating someone who is closed minded if he wasn't making up shit constantly. Badecker simply wants us to throw out the window almost all scientific theories because he says so. Fuck quantum physics, fuck evolution theory, C&E means we are programmed but somehow science hasn't realized this yet, don't worry, badecker knows better. Entropy? After explaining how entropy does not violate evolution theory, do you think badecker accepted defeat? Of course not, he keeps rambling about the same plain wrong argument. I guess he thinks all scientists that have worked and accepted evolution missed that evolution can't exist with entropy or something. No, badecker, they didn't miss it, they know entropy does not make evolution impossible just like your other arguments which were also debunked several times. Yelling adaption like a lunatic isn't an argument, adaption is part of evolution and when that adaption is passed onto future generations, that specific animal/specie is evolving, it's truly a simple concept deep down and yet you don't seem to be able to grasp it.
Why do you think that I want to throw theories out? Since evolution is proven to not exist, its theory is proven ridiculous. Somehow you want to drop the idea of C&E, just to let impossible evolution exist. Even evolution theory doesn't do that. Entropy is in existence all around us. It is obvious. Thinking that it is not, is simply denying reality. Entropy has to do with devolution, not evolution. In theory, adaptation might be part of evolution. But the whole point is, can evolution be a part of adaptation. Why? Because adaptation is obvious, but evolution isn't. The simplicity of the evolution idea isn't what makes it real. What would make it real would be some proof for evolution found in the things that are real. So far, no proof... just a bunch of "yelling" that evolution is real. Did you never see a scientist, or a group of scientists, that made one or more mistakes? You can find hundreds of them simply regarding evolution over the last hundred years. At the same time, there were many other scientists that recognized the mistakes, almost immediately. That's why the mistakes were found out, and those mistaken scientists put to shame. It's time to put the whole idea of evolution to bed. There isn't any ETE. It's been proven wrong and impossible so many times that anybody who looks can easily see that it doesn't exist. Now, I know it is difficult for anybody to put down his pet religion. But state evolution as it is (if you are honest), a religion. Why continue to distract people with evolution foolishness? Rather, find out what the truth really is. Evolution is a hoax. ''What would make it real would be some proof for evolution found in the things that are real. So far, no proof... just a bunch of "yelling" that evolution is real.'' I gave you proof of what you asked but you always go to another argument when confronted with the truth. What would be enough evidence for you, badecker? Just tell me and I will provide it. |
|
|
|
You don't need to do a weekly report if you are participating in the signature campaign.
Also you don't need to quote old reports, in fact I would appreciate if you didn't because it only slows me down. |
|
|
|
''There is no proof of pure random, just as there is no proof of evolution.'' Claiming there is no proof for quantum theory or evolution theory shows how you argue. I give you evidence and facts, you argue with feelings and beliefs, even quoting the bible. If you think you are smarter than all scientists, go ahead and prove them all wrong, no point in arguing any further.
I don't see any point debating someone who is closed minded and simply makes up nonsense... I'm surprised anyone posts in this thread besides BADLogic Just block/ignore him and move on with your life like the rest of us I wouldn't mind debating someone who is closed minded if he wasn't making up shit constantly. Badecker simply wants us to throw out the window almost all scientific theories because he says so. Fuck quantum physics, fuck evolution theory, C&E means we are programmed but somehow science hasn't realized this yet, don't worry, badecker knows better. Entropy? After explaining how entropy does not violate evolution theory, do you think badecker accepted defeat? Of course not, he keeps rambling about the same plain wrong argument. I guess he thinks all scientists that have worked and accepted evolution missed that evolution can't exist with entropy or something. No, badecker, they didn't miss it, they know entropy does not make evolution impossible just like your other arguments which were also debunked several times. Yelling adaption like a lunatic isn't an argument, adaption is part of evolution and when that adaption is passed onto future generations, that specific animal/specie is evolving, it's truly a simple concept deep down and yet you don't seem to be able to grasp it. |
|
|
|
Sure.... but going unvaccinated does lead to the spreading of illnesses, diseases and the like. Better to be vaccinated then not in my opinion.
Going vaccinated leads to spreading of disease sometimes. Live virus flu vaccines have a warning to stay away from immunocompromised individuals for 21 days after receiving the vaccination for this reason. No more visits to Grandma after the mist unless you want to kill her...which would actually be helpful to the solvency of social security system here in the U.S... It is also the case that people who get pertussis (aka whooping cough) vaccinations can become chronic asymptomatic carriers of wild-strain pertussis and go around infecting innocent victims (immunocompromised or not) for a long time. When people know the facts and science behind a things it is more difficult to deploy simplistic and fraudulent 'facts.' That is why there is a dedicated effort on the part of corp/gov (school system, media, government bureaucracy, etc) to make people disinterested, ignorant, and perhaps even incapable of grasping certain concepts. You are dumb, though. A classic intellectual dumb person. No difference between you and flat earthers. Illuminati is controlling us all dude, how are you even alive right now after spreading all this information? Government should have silenced you by now, no? |
|
|
|
You have no evidence for your claims, Quantum theory states the processes are random. Not to be confused with ''causeless'' They have a cause but the outcome is unpredictable, so C&E doesn't affect the random part here. You can type as much as you want but 0 evidence.
Who needs evidence for facts? Thank you for backing me up. Evolution is a theory - not known to be factual, but believed to be by many - just as Quantum Theory is not known to be fact. Science theories come and go and are changed on a daily basis. Why? Because they are known to be fact? Wake up! Scientific theories are the guesstimations that lead toward facts... hopefully. Evolution theory is one of them that should have been dropped as theory long ago, because it is so ridiculous. Brian Cox explains quantum mechanics in 60 seconds - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4OoBut... what are we talking about in this thread? Quantum theory or evolution theory? Loads of websites will tell you that there are random mutations and non-random mutations in evolution. What is the difference between random and non-random? Isn't it the same as caused and causeless? There is no proof of pure random, just as there is no proof of evolution. As cause and effect is observable in countless operations, even so adaptation and like-begets-like is observable in countless operations. Where is the proof that anything is evolution? There isn't any. But stating that there is when there isn't, simply shows that... Evolution is a hoax. ''There is no proof of pure random, just as there is no proof of evolution.'' Claiming there is no proof for quantum theory or evolution theory shows how you argue. I give you evidence and facts, you argue with feelings and beliefs, even quoting the bible. If you think you are smarter than all scientists, go ahead and prove them all wrong, no point in arguing any further. |
|
|
|
Here is the issue with your arguments, badecker, are you a god? How is it that you always know better than top scientists in their fields? Because you always seem to know the answer to questions that thousands of scientists haven't been able to respond for decades. Right now radioactive decay is defined as a ''stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of a singular quantum of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay'' This is what the quantum theory says right now, you claim to know somehow that it's not true. How? Are you god?
Yep, I'm a god. Jesus said in John 10:34-36: 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Since the Word of God has come to me in more ways than one, I am a god. Why do you attempt to throw away the small amount of "Godness" you have left? Actually, the scientists have responded for decades, now. The impossibility of evolution has been known for a long time. The improbability of evolution was known long before that. Many scientists have responded in this way for a long time. But those who don't are simply denying their scientist nature in themsleves. You have no evidence for your claims, Quantum theory states the processes are random. Not to be confused with ''causeless'' They have a cause but the outcome is unpredictable, so C&E doesn't affect the random part here. You can type as much as you want but 0 evidence. |
|
|
|
|
You don't need to do a weekly report if you are participating in the signature campaign.
|
|
|
|
Why would you think that I think C&E eliminates randomness? We have billions or trillions of examples of C&E, but none whatsoever of pure random. They don't necessarily eliminate each other. It all revolves around what exists. How can you eliminate something that you can't find, i.e., random? It isn't there to eliminate? If "you have to have the exact same causes, under the exact same circumstances," all you have is the exact same physics working with the exact same C&E. Nothing goes on in evolution, because evolution only exists in the minds of people who think it exists. We have no example of evolution in nature. All examples of evolution in nature are examples of adaptation or like-begets-like. How do we know? Because adaptation or like-begets-like fits the examples better than the evolution fiction. How do we know this? Because evolution says "randomness" in part, but C&E in as many things that we understand C&E in, without finding even one proven instance of pure random, shows that random doesn't exist probability-wise. No random means no evolution, because evolution theory says that there have to be random mutations. All mutations are C&E actions. What this all means is that C&E continues to work with physics laws to make large of varieties of "things" by the programming that C&E is. Or can you show us one proof of something that came about by random without being the effect of one or more causes? Further, all the scientists know that C&E works in everything. How do we know that they know this? Because that's all they do in their observation or experimentation. Even a scientist who looks for pure random does it by using all kinds of C&E to find it. In fact, the scientist, himself/herself, is totally made of C&E. The question whether what we call random, is truly random, is a philosophical question. My guess is as good as yours. It does not really matter, because you don’t need true random in Evolution. There are a billion factors on the line, just passing two DNA strings on to the next generation. Multiply that by billion years and a billion species, reproducing a trillion times each. You got all the randomness you will ever need. Not even all the computer power in the world could produce this level of randomness. True randomness is by no means a requirement for evolution; you just need mixing under different circumstances, and there you got all the randomness you will need. And as said before Evolution is observable on the daily basic, in all species. Examples of evolution, you are constant looking for, are so plentiful in nature, you could not even count them. Certainly two parents having two different children is not adaptation? like-begets-like, I’ll give you that, exists very much. I got another word for that, Evolution! His argument is that if randomness doesn't exist, someone or something must have put everything in motion however he fails to realize that for example, if the big bang is the beginning of the universe, the big bang isn't sentient, it didn't put things in motion knowingly. He is basically assuming, nothing is random and also assuming the creator of the universe is god, it's a classic badecker argument where he just assumes incredible things without any proof. |
|
|
|
None of us knows that evolution theory evolution (ETE) exists. Cause and effect eliminates random. Every cause causes an effect exactly according to the way the cause affects the effect. Nothing random. Yet, random is a requirement for ETE. Google "random mutations evolution." If the cause didn't produce the exact effect that was caused, fabrication and engineering wouldn't work. The only difference in nature is that the causes and effects are many, and are tiny enough that we can't track them. But physics is exact. It controls everything so that the cause always causes the exact effect required by the way the cause acts. There is no room for random as ETE suggests. Since this is the way the whole universe works, there is no ETE evolution. There might be simple change, or there might be adaptation, and you can call both of these evolution to some extent, but they are not ETE. An engineer conducting an experiment is the cause, and often uses many causes to obtain the effects he is looking for. If things were random as ETE calls for, the engineer could never know if he would ever get the desired results/effects. Standard scientists know this. They know that ETE is impossible, despite what they say. Because of this... Evolution is a hoax. ''Every cause causes an effect exactly according to the way the cause affects the effect. Nothing random.'' Radioactive decay disagrees with you. Although this whole concept is still extremely complex, scientists simply don't know whether everything is random or not. “As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.” Going back to Evolution. Someone once started to think about animals and how they came to be, he eventually realized that through adaption, change, mutations they eventually are able to pass that onto the next generation and called it evolution. Simply defined: ''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''The change can happen through adaption or mutation, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it's passed to next generations. For instance the lizards I talked about ''Each time lizards colonized an island, they evolved into many of the same forms. On each island, some lizards adapted to living high in trees, evolving pads on their feet for gripping surfaces, along with long legs and a stocky body. Other lizards adapted to life among the thin branches lower down on the trees, evolving short legs that help them hug their narrow perches. '' Because they were able to pass those characteristics/changes/adaptions to next generations, they evolved because that's the definition of evolution. Check mate. Nobody has proof that radio active decay is not a C&E thing. More than likely, it is something like evolution, that some scientists want evolution or randomness so bad that they are grasping at one of the few straws left to them. The fact that nobody can predict quantum this or that, simple means that we aren't smart enough. It doesn't have anything to do with what exists or doesn't exist, especially in quantum, since quantum is simply complex probability. Going back to evolution, random mutations would be required according to ETE. No random mutations, because no random, = no evolution... at least not according to the ETE form of evolution. Nice try, however, to sidetrack us from the bottom line of no randomness. There isn't any checkmate regarding evolution. Why not? Because evolution doesn't exist. Evolution is a hoax. Here is the issue with your arguments, badecker, are you a god? How is it that you always know better than top scientists in their fields? Because you always seem to know the answer to questions that thousands of scientists haven't been able to respond for decades. Right now radioactive decay is defined as a ''stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of a singular quantum of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay'' This is what the quantum theory says right now, you claim to know somehow that it's not true. How? Are you god? |
|
|
|
Just got back from a 10 day trip to Vietnam and made a few observations.
1) High population density and a lot of people everywhere, but I rarely saw anyone with a sniffle. When I got back to a domestic hop, the airplane was literally a chorus of coughing and sneezing. I would not rule out the possibility that the fires in the NW were a contributing factor, but I think it safe to say that the U.S. generally is a very sick and weak population. Is it because to many people take the bait and get bi-monthly 'flu shots' at the grocery store? Lacking proper scientific data I'll not say, but I will say that the lack of such scientific data is interesting indeed. To this day there is fierce resistance to any 'total health outcome' studies associated with vaccines. Why?
2) People need their shit wired tight to drive safely in Vietnam given the traffic and driving patterns. I saw not a single accident. The last leg of my trip was 4 hours of driving on American roads, and it seemed like every 10th car had a dunk behind the wheel. Were people to drive like this in Vietnam the road would be littered with fatalities. Could the fact that by most counts well over half of the U.S. population is on prescription meds be associated with this observation about driving skill? Just wondering.
1. Personal experiences are certainly very scientific. 2. Vietnam 24.5 Deaths per 100.000 inhabitants driving, United States 10.6 Was it really that hard to check the statistics? Oh well, for conspiracy theorists probably is, their brain is always trying to fabricate some new conspiracy. Of course the personal experiences of the scientists in their scientific investigations are scientific. If they weren't, we wouldn't be able to understand anything about science at all! The differences between Nam and the States is hygiene. If there weren't any vax in the States, it would be down to 5 per 100,000. What are you always blabbing about without looking at more than your narrow area. Spread your thinking out to look at more of the picture... or are you really a political troll. We were talking about driving, I don't know what hygiene has to do with anything here, did you even read anything? |
|
|
|
Just got back from a 10 day trip to Vietnam and made a few observations.
1) High population density and a lot of people everywhere, but I rarely saw anyone with a sniffle. When I got back to a domestic hop, the airplane was literally a chorus of coughing and sneezing. I would not rule out the possibility that the fires in the NW were a contributing factor, but I think it safe to say that the U.S. generally is a very sick and weak population. Is it because to many people take the bait and get bi-monthly 'flu shots' at the grocery store? Lacking proper scientific data I'll not say, but I will say that the lack of such scientific data is interesting indeed. To this day there is fierce resistance to any 'total health outcome' studies associated with vaccines. Why?
2) People need their shit wired tight to drive safely in Vietnam given the traffic and driving patterns. I saw not a single accident. The last leg of my trip was 4 hours of driving on American roads, and it seemed like every 10th car had a dunk behind the wheel. Were people to drive like this in Vietnam the road would be littered with fatalities. Could the fact that by most counts well over half of the U.S. population is on prescription meds be associated with this observation about driving skill? Just wondering.
1. Personal experiences are certainly very scientific. 2. Vietnam 24.5 Deaths per 100.000 inhabitants driving, United States 10.6 Was it really that hard to check the statistics? Oh well, for conspiracy theorists probably is, their brain is always trying to fabricate some new conspiracy. |
|
|
|
''had to do with some changes in nature'' Are you talking about evolution? Your <70 IQ is showing again. Evolution refers to change, and in particular in our gene-centered age, change due to changes in genes. Mutation changes DNA sequence, and if that change is transmitted to the next generation, the population’s gene pool, its set of genotype variants, has changed—it has evolved. I already gave you plenty of examples of this, the lizard speciation example for instance clearly fits the definition of evolution.
Evolution can't be change, because evolution doesn't exist. Evolution isn't anything. Change is cause and effect programming. Mutation is simply change via C&E programming. You don't need me to give you any C&E examples, because you and all people - especially the scientists among us - use C&E everyday. But like your inability to give us any proof for evolution, you don't have even one proof for pure random (opposite of C&E). Yet, C&E, adaptation, and like-begets-like abound all over the place in quantities too numerous for us to be able to count. Evolution is a hoax, and its perpetrators are destroyers of knowledge. Hmm, we all know evolution exists  How do you figure that cause and effect eliminates the possibility of Evolution? Sounds like you think they are mutual exclusive? Everything is cause and effect; there is always, in everything, a cause that gives an effect. While in science, fabrication / engineering you use causal systems and experiments, it’s either a closed system or you only see the effects that materialize. In other areas it’s purely a philosophic subject, because here you wonder also about the things that could have materialized, but did not. Nothing excludes evolution in neither science or in philosophy, cause and effect. There is no such thing as cause and effect programming in Evolution. Cause and effect, yes, programming, no. Evolution works in the biggest system we know, the universe, with no option to step outside the system to observe. The observer is himself part of the “experiment”. There is absolutely no way to run the experiment without either contributing to the cause, or being an effect. An Engineer conducting an experiment does it from the outside, observing in. He is able to add or remove items in order to observe cause and effect. He is not himself part of the experiment. None of us knows that evolution theory evolution (ETE) exists. Cause and effect eliminates random. Every cause causes an effect exactly according to the way the cause affects the effect. Nothing random. Yet, random is a requirement for ETE. Google "random mutations evolution." If the cause didn't produce the exact effect that was caused, fabrication and engineering wouldn't work. The only difference in nature is that the causes and effects are many, and are tiny enough that we can't track them. But physics is exact. It controls everything so that the cause always causes the exact effect required by the way the cause acts. There is no room for random as ETE suggests. Since this is the way the whole universe works, there is no ETE evolution. There might be simple change, or there might be adaptation, and you can call both of these evolution to some extent, but they are not ETE. An engineer conducting an experiment is the cause, and often uses many causes to obtain the effects he is looking for. If things were random as ETE calls for, the engineer could never know if he would ever get the desired results/effects. Standard scientists know this. They know that ETE is impossible, despite what they say. Because of this... Evolution is a hoax. ''Every cause causes an effect exactly according to the way the cause affects the effect. Nothing random.'' Radioactive decay disagrees with you. Although this whole concept is still extremely complex, scientists simply don't know whether everything is random or not. “As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.” Going back to Evolution. Someone once started to think about animals and how they came to be, he eventually realized that through adaption, change, mutations they eventually are able to pass that onto the next generation and called it evolution. Simply defined: ''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''The change can happen through adaption or mutation, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it's passed to next generations. For instance the lizards I talked about ''Each time lizards colonized an island, they evolved into many of the same forms. On each island, some lizards adapted to living high in trees, evolving pads on their feet for gripping surfaces, along with long legs and a stocky body. Other lizards adapted to life among the thin branches lower down on the trees, evolving short legs that help them hug their narrow perches. '' Because they were able to pass those characteristics/changes/adaptions to next generations, they evolved because that's the definition of evolution. Check mate. |
|
|
|
''had to do with some changes in nature'' Are you talking about evolution? Your <70 IQ is showing again. Evolution refers to change, and in particular in our gene-centered age, change due to changes in genes. Mutation changes DNA sequence, and if that change is transmitted to the next generation, the population’s gene pool, its set of genotype variants, has changed—it has evolved. I already gave you plenty of examples of this, the lizard speciation example for instance clearly fits the definition of evolution.
Evolution can't be change, because evolution doesn't exist. Evolution isn't anything. Change is cause and effect programming. Mutation is simply change via C&E programming. You don't need me to give you any C&E examples, because you and all people - especially the scientists among us - use C&E everyday. But like your inability to give us any proof for evolution, you don't have even one proof for pure random (opposite of C&E). Yet, C&E, adaptation, and like-begets-like abound all over the place in quantities too numerous for us to be able to count. Evolution is a hoax, and its perpetrators are destroyers of knowledge. Good and evil doesn't exist, everything is programmed with C&E. Murders aren't real, everything is programmed with C&E. People aren't really building anything everything is programmed with C&E. You aren't posting this everything is programmed with C&E. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
