These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story.  Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth. Thank you. Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves. I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results. But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution. Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer. There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales. If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both. As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations. You just flunked basic science. I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now. The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education. The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point. Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material. When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change. In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on. Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect. Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming. Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though. No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is. Why would you think the industrial revolution was a random event? There aren't any random events. There are only events that people call random because they don't understand what made them happen. Many people claim that parts of evolution are random. That's why evolution fails. None of it is random. ''RANDOM'' as not intended to make moths change color, are you dumb? The industrial revolution was caused by people, how does that change the truth that moths evolved or all the other animals evolve? |
|
|
|
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story. Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth. Thank you. Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves. I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results. But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution. Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer. There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales. If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both. As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations. You just flunked basic science. I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now. The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education. The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point. Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material. When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change. In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on. Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect. Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming. Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though. No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is. |
|
|
|
|
Religion had a purpose long ago now it's just a waste of money. A bunch of pedophiles and delusional people. It's totally useless and we don't need it, I'm pretty sure we would be better without it.
|
|
|
|
In a world where ladies appear naked thinking that they are putting on clothes. In a world where women do things that arouses the Men. In a world where parents encourage their children to wear skimpy dresses. What world are we living in?
Should rapists be sent to jail or not?
It's similar to me leaving my wallet on a chair at the Metro station in the bad area of a major city in front of 20 homeless people and then coming back 3 hours later wondering why my wallet is gone. It doesn't make it okay for them to steal my wallet, but everyone knows exactly what will happen if you do. Men aren't attracted to women in the way men were in the 1980s and before. Homosexuality and similar things are going through the roof. Women are dressing appropriately for being in the company of other women and it is also suitable for being in the presence of today's emasculated men. Rapists should be punished but there must be evidence to prove that the victim isn't lying. I hope this doesn't turn in to a copy of the "punishment for rapists" thread where a bunch of Internet tough guys keep coming along and posting things like penis chopping and death penalty without making sure there is evidence to prove rape. It's like being in a bar with a bunch of big mouth cowards who are trying to impress a lady. Yes. It seems today that you are no longer innocent until proven guilty if you are accused of rape, you are a rapist. If you are a man and you have sex with a woman and she decides to lie and tell the police that you raped her, you are going to be pretty screwed. Not only they are going to arrest you immediately but also you gonna have to prove your innocence, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
I can't even believe that flat-earthers are being serious. I always thought its just a hilarious joke to a point that people are trying to defend it but only for the sole purpose of ridiculing it.  If flat earth society questions Earth being sphere, are they questioning other planets such as Mars if it's sphere too? I can not comprehend this whatever this is anymore.  Fact: (((Scientists))) actually calculate the weight of Mars by observing two lead balls through a hole drilled in the wall of a 17th century shed. Sauce: https://en.(((wikipedia))).org/wiki/Cavendish_experimentwas the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory. Why do you keep mentioning the first experiment that proved gravity if you believe gravity doesn't exist? Are you stupid? LOL |
|
|
|
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story. Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth. Thank you. Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves. I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results. But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution. Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer. There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales. If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both. As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations. You just flunked basic science. I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now. The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education. The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point. |
|
|
|
Travel 4000 years ago and ask the cientists of that time. They already knew the truth.
The Earth is motionless and the Michelson & Morley experiment proves this. This is corroborated by Airy's Failure experiment that also failed to detect any motion. Airy's Failure suggests nothing of the sort. In fact "Airy's Failure" had a hand in the formulation of Einstein's own theories. Neither does the Michelson and Morley experiment. What it directly proves is that if you split a beam of light into two and make the halves go on round-trip journeys along two equal-length arms at right angles, the difference in the times taken between the arms (nominally zero) does not change if you swap the positions of the two arms by rotating the apparatus. The reason that's odd is that the earth is orbiting the sun at 30 km/s, and the sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy at 220 km/s, so the earth is presumptively moving through whatever it is that electromagnetic waves propagate through at at least 30 km/s and possibly much more. If light has to waste time chasing the apparatus, you can easily show that in the arm that's transverse to the earth's velocity the round-trip time should be increased by γ(v)γ(v) (the Lorentz factor), and in the other, longitudinal arm it should be increased by γ2(v)γ2(v). Now for velocities much less than that of light, γ(v)≈1+v22c2γ(v)≈1+v22c2 and γ2(v)≈1+v2c2γ2(v)≈1+v2c2, for a difference of v22c2v22c2. That's pretty small but it ought to have been detectable with v=30 km/s and 1895 optical technology by rotating the apparatus and thereby flipping it from one arm to the other. But no. The relativistic interpretation of this is two-fold. The nuts-and-bolts interpretation is that there is length contraction: whichever is the longitudinal arm at any particular time contracts by a factor of γ(v)γ(v) so as to make the times in the two arms equal. (The interpretation is also that both arms, as honorary light clocks, are then time dilated by γ(v)γ(v), but the MM version of the experiment is not sensitive to this - see instead the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.) The broader interpretation is that it's not just a one-off coincidence that the MM experiment failed to detect the velocity of the aether, it's a fundamental principle underlying the laws of physics, and that there must be whatever other effects are required to make the velocity relative to the aether systematically undetectable. The second new effect is of course time dilation: it must be the nature of an ideal clock to slow down by γ(v)γ(v) as for the arms of the MM experiment or you could do a combined experiment that would show the difference. And the third main new effect is relativistic mass increase. These have all now been confirmed in various combinations. Curiously you don't have to change a single thing about Maxwellian electromagnetism - it was right the whole time and Newtonian mechanics was wrong. Or in other words, the speed of light being constant is not a mysterious new property of light, it's a set of new properties of everything you could possibly measure light with. And of course, what is systematically undetectable is presumptively non-existent. So we conclude that there never was an aether, it was just an artifact of thinking about EM in the context of the wrong theory of mechanics (and of time and space). https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-Michelson-Morley-experiment-prove |
|
|
|
Yes i do. I don't know what my life is without God. He save my life many times in the past. Me and my wife make God as center of our relationship. Even though i did'nt see our God i have faith that he is always at my side. Guiding me and my family everyday.
How do you know that god saved your life? How do you know god is real? Prayer doesn't work, innocent people are tortured everyday, we are still here, we are being punished even though we haven't done anything wrong. God is not real. |
|
|
|
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story. Like what? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg25582231#msg25582231 Don't be delusional, admit you lost, you have no arguments, all of them are lies. |
|
|
|
Ugh, those videos always make me lose some IQ points, I'm going to be a flat earther soon if I keep losing IQ points. ''I have never heard of a flat disk collapsing into a ball'' ''You have to inflate a basketball'' You can just see the intelligence of these people with his own comments in his video. He doesn't understand that a huge flat disk in space would indeed collapse due to gravity, he uses as an example a basketball which is small and greatly affected by earth's gravity, it's not even hard dude, kids would understand what vsauce meant. |
|
|
|
I believe, and every time I look at my kids I thank God again and again.
I’m confused, god came in your wife? Or was it an immaculate conception? Anyway, props to you for raising someone else’s kids. If you’d like to have kids of your own, all that’s required is a six pack of wine coolers to get her drunk and the back seat of a car. Teenagers don’t seem to have any problem doing it without gods help. Next time you’re chatting with god, ask him why he allowed this mother to get pregnant? Did he think it was fair for the kid to grow up with a homeless whore as a mother?  It's all part of god's mysterious ways, you wouldn't understand it. Now seriously, if a god exists and he knows about us then he is evil. How would God knowing about us makes us evil, i think a detailed explanation is really needed here. If god knows about humans and he is indeed all powerful all knowing, bla bla then he is evil because he could help innocent people and he doesn't. There is no point in making a child suffer for years without food, illness, etc when you can stop it. Picture this, you find someone that is about to get killed by whatever and you can actually save him with no effort and no risk but you decide not to, aren't you evil? |
|
|
|
Again, three of the many things that prove that evolution is impossible are: 1. Math probability; 2. Irreducible Complexity; 3. The complexity of universal cause and effect, without pure random ever being proven anywhere = no mutations that really have not been programmed into the universe. Google "proof that evolution fails" or any other words that look for that proof. Look for any explanations that try to rebut the proof that evolution is impossible. Then, read the rebuttals to see that they are always based in something else that is not proven, or they are circular language that tries to prove evolution simply by stating in many different ways that evolution is fact, without showing any real proof. Evolution scientists have been looking for proof of evolution since before Darwin. Over that time, they have redefined all kinds of things because they can't find proof for evolution anywhere that hasn't been rebutted. Currently, part of their definition of evolution includes that evolution is mere change, just so that they can say that evolution is fact, because change is fact. Evolution is a complete hoax. And scientists who would otherwise be honest, are proving that evolution is a hoax by twisting the idea around so extremely much, because they so want evolution to be true. I don’t get it? Mutations goes on, on a daily basic! You don’t look like your father right? You might have different hair color, different shoe size, might be taller, slimmer, run faster, be a better (or worse) athlete, wider face, longer finger, longer legs etc. And that is just the physical changes. There is a whole range of mind changes going on also. This is just the obvious changes. You got an even amount of hidden changes, which will not be obvious right away. This is just one generation. Imagine 1000 or 100.000 generations. Now changes themselves are not enough. There are 3 rules that need to become true in order for changes to become permanent in any society. 1) It needs to give you an edge in the mating game. It can be every so good a change, if it does not allow you to prorogate better or at least equal good, it is worthless. 2) It needs to be beneficial for society; two head might think twice as fast, but if society is scared of you, it is no good. 3) The lucky game. Just because you for fill 1) and 2), does not mean your offspring will. Right back to the start of this writing; you don’t look like your father! If your offspring does not carry it on in equal positive manner, it’s just a dead end. This goes on every single day, for 10 million newborns. Changes are everywhere, permanently changes are one in a million, and takes many many 10.000 of years. He is a religious nut job and anything that he considers threatening to his religion is fake or a hoax. That's how most religious people work. That's 99.99% of the opposition against evolution calling it fake. Calling the theory of evolution fake has nothing to do with religious people seeing it as a threat to their religion, as far as the world knows, there hasn't been anything proven to justify this whole thing at all and without the evidence why would anyone believe we evolved from monkeys, why hasn't the other monkeys evolved as well. Don't quote me again, use google and do some research by yourself instead of posting this retarded meme. You people are so cringy. |
|
|
|
boy, it's interesting to watch how both abusive and defensive people get... I mean, we can't all believe the same thing, that's what helps humans move forward. And, just because a bunch of people have "concluded" something, doesnt mean that you should still question it. Humans are humans, we make mistakes, we can be wrong...
We have videos, photos and streaming of earth from space, this is not a matter of belief, it's mental illness. |
|
|
|
I believe, and every time I look at my kids I thank God again and again.
I’m confused, god came in your wife? Or was it an immaculate conception? Anyway, props to you for raising someone else’s kids. If you’d like to have kids of your own, all that’s required is a six pack of wine coolers to get her drunk and the back seat of a car. Teenagers don’t seem to have any problem doing it without gods help. Next time you’re chatting with god, ask him why he allowed this mother to get pregnant? Did he think it was fair for the kid to grow up with a homeless whore as a mother? It's all part of god's mysterious ways, you wouldn't understand it. Now seriously, if a god exists and he knows about us then he is evil. |
|
|
|
Again, three of the many things that prove that evolution is impossible are: 1. Math probability; 2. Irreducible Complexity; 3. The complexity of universal cause and effect, without pure random ever being proven anywhere = no mutations that really have not been programmed into the universe. Google "proof that evolution fails" or any other words that look for that proof. Look for any explanations that try to rebut the proof that evolution is impossible. Then, read the rebuttals to see that they are always based in something else that is not proven, or they are circular language that tries to prove evolution simply by stating in many different ways that evolution is fact, without showing any real proof. Evolution scientists have been looking for proof of evolution since before Darwin. Over that time, they have redefined all kinds of things because they can't find proof for evolution anywhere that hasn't been rebutted. Currently, part of their definition of evolution includes that evolution is mere change, just so that they can say that evolution is fact, because change is fact. Evolution is a complete hoax. And scientists who would otherwise be honest, are proving that evolution is a hoax by twisting the idea around so extremely much, because they so want evolution to be true. I don’t get it? Mutations goes on, on a daily basic! You don’t look like your father right? You might have different hair color, different shoe size, might be taller, slimmer, run faster, be a better (or worse) athlete, wider face, longer finger, longer legs etc. And that is just the physical changes. There is a whole range of mind changes going on also. This is just the obvious changes. You got an even amount of hidden changes, which will not be obvious right away. This is just one generation. Imagine 1000 or 100.000 generations. Now changes themselves are not enough. There are 3 rules that need to become true in order for changes to become permanent in any society. 1) It needs to give you an edge in the mating game. It can be every so good a change, if it does not allow you to prorogate better or at least equal good, it is worthless. 2) It needs to be beneficial for society; two head might think twice as fast, but if society is scared of you, it is no good. 3) The lucky game. Just because you for fill 1) and 2), does not mean your offspring will. Right back to the start of this writing; you don’t look like your father! If your offspring does not carry it on in equal positive manner, it’s just a dead end. This goes on every single day, for 10 million newborns. Changes are everywhere, permanently changes are one in a million, and takes many many 10.000 of years. He is a religious nut job and anything that he considers threatening to his religion is fake or a hoax. That's how most religious people work. That's 99.99% of the opposition against evolution calling it fake. |
|
|
|
Here we go again, like a broken record.
Do you notice how all his "arguments" are just circular? I can change a few words in anything he posts to "prove" almost anything is real. He just repeats these arguments over and over without providing actual proof of anything.  Specially when he tries to prove god, his arguments could be used to prove any kind of god and when I tell him that he always says: why are you bringing religion into this?? and his |
|
|
|
Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality. What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time. He doesn't know what he is talking about. I already showed him many times that he is wrong, as you can see he doesn't even acknowledge anything and keeps saying the same idiotic things. Again, three of the many things that prove that evolution is impossible are: 1. Math probability; 2. Irreducible Complexity; 3. The complexity of universal cause and effect, without pure random ever being proven anywhere = no mutations that really have not been programmed into the universe. Google "proof that evolution fails" or any other words that look for that proof. Look for any explanations that try to rebut the proof that evolution is impossible. Then, read the rebuttals to see that they are always based in something else that is not proven, or they are circular language that tries to prove evolution simply by stating in many different ways that evolution is fact, without showing any real proof. Evolution scientists have been looking for proof of evolution since before Darwin. Over that time, they have redefined all kinds of things because they can't find proof for evolution anywhere that hasn't been rebutted. Currently, part of their definition of evolution includes that evolution is mere change, just so that they can say that evolution is fact, because change is fact. Evolution is a complete hoax. And scientists who would otherwise be honest, are proving that evolution is a hoax by twisting the idea around so extremely much, because they so want evolution to be true. Here we go again, like a broken record. 1. http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html2. In the post you quoted it seems you missed these links: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.htmlhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/23. Yes Zeus programmed everything. By the way, even if I agree with you and god programmed everything, evolution would still exist lul. Funny thing is that most religious people actually accept evolution as true. Even pope Francis and many more have stated that evolution is true. he said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” Anyone who knows anything about Catholic history knows that a statement like this is nothing new. Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical “Humani Generis” in 1950 affirming that there was no conflict between evolution and Catholic faith. Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that, stressing that evolution was more than a hypothesis, in 1996. Pope Benedict XVI hosted a conference on the nuances of creation and evolution in 2006. You are one of the few nutjobs that still claim evolution is not true. |
|
|
|
Again, the only way evolution theory is accurate is within the theory. It doesn't fit a whole bunch of things in reality. What does not fit? Still have not found anything that does not fit evolution. You know evolution takes time! lots of time. He doesn't know what he is talking about. I already showed him many times that he is wrong, as you can see he doesn't even acknowledge anything and keeps saying the same idiotic things. |
|
|
|
I was never any good at sports. Wny not? Because I always felt sorry for the opposite team when they were losing. And, of course, since I didn't want my team to lose, I decided not to be in sports. You guys go fight with Astargath. I feel too sorry for him because he is losing all the time, and much of the time doesn't even realize it. '' Because Christianity is a religion of faith, many Bible scholars say we should avoid proving any of it. By entering the movements of the stars and planets into a computer, NASA has found that the lost day of Joshua in Joshua 10:13, and the shorter period of time in 2 Kings 20:9–11 that were supposed to be discrepancies in the movements of the stars and planets. One site is https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/nasa-found-joshuas-missing-day/. Science is starting to prove that the Bible is accurate.'' Yea badecker, we can all see how you are winning by posting a link that says ''arguments to avoid'' which is exactly the argument you are using, I don't even need to prove you wrong, you prove yourself wrong hahaha. You don't even get it, do you? One time I play your game, and you jump right on it in attack. Keep it up, Dufus. You attack yourself way more than you could ever think to attack me. And you don't even realize it. Ye ye, just admit that you fucked up badly and move on, you are only making yourself look even more pathetic. I will still post the link whenever you say something about science to show everyone how you do your ''research'' |
|
|
|
The only thing about evolution that is true is that there indeed is a theory of evolution. Evolution as reality is a complete hoax. If badecker, the guy who didn't even know what entropy is, didn't know what a scientific theory meant and posts links that contradicts what he says, says so, it must be true, right?  But since BADecker knows what entropy is and what scientific theory means, the things he says can be trusted as absolute truth. No you don't because you thought Evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics and you were wrong. You also have said more than once (It's just a theory) Like that would be a bad thing, clearly because you didn't understand what a scientific theory meant. I can find these posts if you want to. You know very well that the idea that a scientific theory is fact hasn't even reached the status of theory, yet. It probably isn't even a hypothesis. What? Do you even try to make sense when you post here? As I said, you were wrong numerous times, with entropy, not knowing what a scientific theory meant, you were wrong about irreducible complex systems and many many more, stop embarrassing yourself. What's the matter? You want to stop me from posting. Why? Are you really afraid that your whole life would crumble if you dared to look at truth? You say lots of stuff. This is a forum. That's the way you participate. It doesn't make what you say correct, or even close. Anybody can look up entropy all over the Net and in the text books to see that I am right about it. Anybody can look up irreducible complexity to see that the contradictions to it are a mass of convoluted, meaningless blabber. Anybody can look up the word "theory" to see that it is something that isn't known to be factual. Can you find even one piece of fact or scientific fact that shows that scientific theory is fact and not unknowns? As I said, scientific-theory-as-fact has not, itself, even been put into theory form, to try to prove if any object of any scientific theory can be known to be factual. After all, common knowledge is that science fact is called science law, not science theory. Nobody knows that scientific theory is fact. If we don't know, believing scientific theories to be factual is a religious response. When you state that evolution theory is factual, or that big bang theory is factual, or that black hole theory is factual, or that relativity theory is factual, you are taking those things into the realm of religion. Why? Because faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not known. Stop talking religion, and start talking science. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in a isolated system. Our planet is not a isolated system. Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are. Same with creation. Creation fits, because evolution doesn't. Evolution theory might fit, but it has been rebutted in as many ways as it stands, by the simple fact that 100% of the science that evolution theory says proves evolution to be real, can fit things other than evolution, and can fit these other things better. Evolution is a dream. It is science fiction. When it is promoted as being factual in the face of all the things that are against it, it is a hoax. It might not have been a hoax in the days of Darwin. But with all the science that contradicts it nowadays, evolution has become a big fat hoax. Why do you still want to prove that you don't understand what a theory is? ''Haven't you realized, yet, that "something" and the "theory of something" are two different things? Black holes are factual. They are anomalies that we have given the name "black hole." But we don't really have much of a clue about "black hole theory" being the true explanation of what black holes really are.'' You are right, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what explains it. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediatehttp://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.htmlhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2You are right, everyone can look up how these things do not disprove evolution whatsoever, only in your mind  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
