^^^ The point isn't about linking articles. Neither is it about nature doing things without the involvement of mankind. The point is about proving evolution. Nothing you have shown has any proof that mankind, in his history and prehistory, was some other animal at some time. All science writings that suggest it don't show that their science wasn't something else. Even if we could find something that was undeniably ETE, today... something that did not fit adaptation, simple change, or like-begets-like, at all... such isn't proof that life as we know it formed on earth by ETE. Why not? Because abiogenesis might have happened individually for billions of species in the distant past. We don't have any evidence that says it could not have. There is no proof for evolution. Evolution is a hoax.  EDIT: The simple fact that, since Darwin, and for thousands of years before, people have not been able to find evolution for a fact, shows that we are very inadequate for and incapable of finding stuff that is right in front of us, or that evolution doesn't exist. The articles contain the evidence and proof you are asking for. Animals have been shown to evolve, the case of the toad is simply one of many. Just like the lizards they evolved by adapting to the new environment developing new features that are passed on through generations (evolution). This clearly shows that animals not only adapt but they can pass their new genes to their offspring and so on. Is it really difficult to understand this? You have a normal animal, somehow its environment changes or its forced to go somewhere else and starts developing, say, longer legs, those genes are passed on and only longer legged animals exist, the others eventually die, now you have that animal but with longer legs. After thousands of years, they might be forced again to change for whatever reason, now they also develop a bigger head, so now you have longer legged, bigger heads animals, if you follow this progression, eventually after many years you will find a totally new animal, is it really hard to see this? |
|
|
|
Ok, don't throw me into the same basket for the believers of conspiracy theories.
I believe Earth is NOT flat. I don't believe there are aliens in Area 51.
But this question is factually not very convincing and it is, did we actually land on moon in 1969.
There are many compelling evidences, facts etc that proves that indeed we landed on moon.
But even in 21st century where there an accident with Kalpana Chawla who merely went to space and came back, it sounds too good to be true that in 1969, we landed on the moon which is around 300000 kms or 186000 miles from the Earth with those time of technologies and successfully came back. Remember, the first apple computer was launched in 1976.
I'm not saying we didn't, I'm just saying that it's not really a question that can be debunked like other theories which says Earth is flat.
You have a point not to believe it. But, actually if you don't make a trip to the outer space you will never know what it is true. You have to go and see with your own eyes what it is going on.. Maybe you can schedule a trip to moon for your summer holidays You can't expect to do that every time you need to know whether something is true or not. Even if you went to outer space, some flat earthers nutjobs would still claim it's a virtual reality program or they are being drugged, etc, they will always find an excuse because their brain simply doesn't work normally, their delusion is that strong. |
|
|
|
|
Deep web is basically most of the internet so even though those websites went offline, that's not even close to the whole internet, in fact many studies show that 99% of the internet is basically in the deep web and you can't google it. It would also be quite hard to 'turn off' the internet, you could do it physically but you would need to have access to all the aquatic cables (the internet) and cut them all at once, which seems quite fucking hard.
|
|
|
|
|
What makes me believe it the most is the fact that the moon landing was a race between several countries, biggest countries at the time and somehow conspirators think the USA was able to fake it in such a way that they fooled entire nations to believe them? And somehow now years later some youtube idiots were able to find out? Seems quite improbable.
|
|
|
|
^^^ LOL! Now you are saying that nature does experiments according to the scientific method? What? Just because scientists are part of nature, does that really make nature the thing that does the science experiments? You are getting into philosophy with this, where we do things and analyze them according to our doing of them rather than according to the way they fit nature. The lizards didn't have-to or not-have-to change their environment. They didn't change their environment, and couldn't change their environment. You seem to entirely enjoy suggesting nonsense just to distract from the fact that you don't have any proof for evolution. When you look through the better science fiction stories, lots of things seem credible. So we see how evolution might seem to be credible. Animals don't develop changes to or in themselves. They change according to their environment acting on programming that has been placed inside of them - in their DNA - right from the Beginning. Rather than acknowledge how things work, you would maintain something silly like evolution. Evolution is a hoax. Don't worry, I linked plenty of other examples that didn't involve humans doing anything, just observing, for instance the cane toad (and many more which you clearly refuse to look at because you are a liar) https://www.canetoadsinoz.com/cane-toads-caused-evolution.htmlSee, this one also evolved and humans didn't even do anything, cya. |
|
|
|
Do you have evidence that vaccines are, in fact unsafe or lead to any kind of mental illness? Beyond the CDC not filing reports with congress....
If a rattle snake or a cobra bites you, injecting their venom into you, is there any danger? When you look at all the crap that is in modern vaccines as shown by the CDC in their own website, why would you think that there is any safety? The whole body is designed in nature to keep this poisonous stuff from entering. The skin protects us. So, we have the medical bypassing nature's own skin safety program, and then refusing to do the safety tests (or at least provide the results of those tests), even when government requires the tests. Obviously the lack of safety is from the medical rather than from the vaccines. Can you prove they are refusing to do safety tests? Just because somewhere someone didn't test something it doesn't mean governments all over the world are in on it and are trying to poison people. https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/debunking-myths-about-vaccine-testing-and-safety/ |
|
|
|
^^^ You suggest that religious books are nothing, but you haven't used the scientific method on them. If you had, you would find out that the science in them is more powerful than the scientific knowledge we have today in the directions that the religious books talk. You would also find which of these books are credible, and which are lacking in scientific and common sense. Notice how the Bible can be tested against the kind of people that the people of Israel are to show that the writings of the Bible absolutely have to be real, or they wouldn't have been written in such an absolutely down-to-earth fashion that they have been written in. One of the philosophies of the scientific method is that scientists don't use the scientific method on things that they are not interested in. Since most of the scientists are interested in working with the physical things at hand, why would they even apply the scientific method to religious books to find out which are realistic and which are not? Just stating that religious books are nothing, is stating that thinking people are nothing, and that science is nothing because it is developed by thinking people, just as the religious books have been. So, you see that it is you who are messed up, because thinking scientists actually do reasonable studies, and their talk about their studies fits the way people talk about things as described in the religious books. Science and religion are tied right to each other... interwoven, even. Considering how many scientific errors the bible contains, what do you mean we haven't used the scientific method on them? Of course we have, there is not much you can do with the scientific method to a book, though. No experiments can be done to test god, no evidence, no hypothesis. ''or they wouldn't have been written in such an absolutely down-to-earth fashion that they have been written in.'' [False dilemma fallacy] '' false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]'' ''Since most of the scientists are interested in working with the physical things at hand, why would they even apply the scientific method to religious books to find out which are realistic and which are not? '' Because a lot of scientists are also religious people so of course they would try to apply the scientific method to the bible, unfortunately they failed and that's why even religious scientists do not talk about it. |
|
|
|
You guys need to forget about the old vaccines, and look seriously at the modern vaccines. These are full of poisons and are designed to reduce fertility and weaken immune systems. They are also a major profit source for Big Pharma, and a way to divert funding from more productive health care. If vaccines really worked, then it wouldn't matter if some people chose not to vaccinate, as the "protected" readers of propaganda would not be affected. The very fact that they need to impose their ill considered injection of poison and disease into healthy people indicates that vaccines are not effective.
Thats a silly argument, just because some people are vaccinated it doesnt mean they are totally immune and the disease could evolve while active in other people. |
|
|
|
Just curious to know is there any punishment for the people who found giving fake details.
" serious immigration consequences" which probably means lifetime ban from US entry. Same thing when they search the last five years of social media. If you've ever posted you smoked a joint, you also get a lifetime ban. Yep, obviously i doubt they would do anything else for posting something on your social media, a lifetime ban at most, its not like they are going to send the FBI to get you |
|
|
|
This is the reason I don't usually go to church. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I do believe in God but I am not that kind of people that go to church every day. Also, I am not so emerged to that religion that I can kill people because of it. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I still know what is morally right and morally wrong.
Which basically proves god is not real, the bible supposedly has the absolute morals and yet you are able to see and think for yourself and understand when the bible is wrong(which it shouldnt be) for instance you know killing is wrong or slavery but the bible encourages it many times. |
|
|
|
Countries can't even help themselves imagine having to help a whole continent far away that has far more problems. Is the poverty rate zero in America or Europe? Of course not, do we not have people dying here? Do we not have children starving? We do, clearly in lower rates but we do, how is it possible that in a 1st world country children are still dying from not eating, how do we still have people without houses? Yes I know some of them do not deserve them but there are far too many that do and have or had jobs and still can't pay for them.
Starving because you are poor doesnt exists in the first world. Its basically a requirement for being first world. Being homeless in western and northern europe is not possible either, only if you choose yourself to be homeless. What a load of crap. In spain many families are thrown out of their houses : https://www.lasexta.com/programas/mas-vale-tarde/noticias/desahuciados-con-mas-de-70-anos-seguimos-sin-tener-una-ley-en-espana-que-garantice-el-derecho-a-la-vivienda_201809255baa6d7b0cf22905f4d3b147.htmlIf you need translation, the title literally says, Spain still has no law that guarantees the right to a house. The old couple didn't have enough money to pay the rent and couldn't do anything at 70 years old, they were thrown out of their home, you actually think they chose to? This is not one case either, it happened hundreds of times. Wake up. Doesnt spain has social securities? I.e. if you are cant afford a home in germany you just go the office for social welfare and get a appartment fully paid with everything you need to live - basically no questions asked. Seems spain is not part of the first world then or you are posting fake news. No, it seems that you refuse to look at reality, you are one of those people who think all homeless people are lazy and that's why they are homeless, spain is full of corruption just like many other 1st world countries, political parties steal hundreds of millions here, wake the fuck up bro. Corruption exists everywhere. It still doesnt reject the reality that you can instantly get food or a home via social welfare if you cannot afford it in the first world. You can usually get food but not a home, although a lot of people do get homes here for free, not all of them do, why do you think they are homeless people then if they can simply get a home through social welfare? A lot of old people are getting thrown out of their homes here because they can't pay, do you think they wanted that? They worked their whole life to get thrown out, there are numerous stories about it. Read my first post to you again. People choose to be homeless else fucking social welfare pays them a home. This is a fact in modern first world nations. Young and old people who cannot afford to pay for themself can use social welfare and instantly get an appartment/house. This is reality in all western and northern european states (it seems spain would count as a southern european nation which does not provide this) Its not the reality even though you might think so, also healthcare and education are quite bad in many 1st world countries, romania, bulgaria but even in Spain, i had an appointment with my cardiologist in 7 months from now, i had to go to a private one. |
|
|
|
You have to understand that religious people are really low IQ people / indoctrinated heavily or delusional. Radical Muslims actually believe they are doing us a favor by killing our babies because they will go directly to heaven, similarly they truly believe it's their duty to kill infidels, etc.
Your belief is not well-supported: We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators' educational levels is available -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 -- 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. As a point of reference, only 52 percent of Americans have been to college. The terrorists in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well educated as many Americans.
A study of 75 people? Please look at real studies, all of them clearly show that higher education means less belief, you think scientists believe in the same % in god as normal citizens? Jesus, why would you even post this garbage? |
|
|
|
^^^ Religion doesn't always mean "God." In fact, it might mean other things more than it means "God." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religionWhen scientists stop using things of science to determine what they call scientific findings, they are using religion. Why? Because it is based on belief rather than on scientific fact. All scientific theories use the scientific method. All religious books use... nothing. They are simple writings. Notice how the bible provides no evidence or test for anything it claims, it simply claims things without anything to back them up. |
|
|
|
^^^ You just don't get it, do you. ALL examples of evolution theory evolution are simply talk with no proof to back them up. All that the best of them do is show some real evidence of adaptation that could be attributed to ETE or something else. As such, they don't prove ETE. Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof. That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll. Evolution is a hoax. What do you understand as proof exactly? The evidence is extremely clear, we have a few lizards, we take them to another environment and they change, adapt and finally evolve and all of them become a different type of lizard, how is that not proof? Evolution is consistently tested through the scientific method, see: https://www.ibiology.org/sessions/session-4-evolution-measured/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231164743.htm''In the absence of any other validated hypothesis, the Theory of Evolution stands as the most logical conclusion.'' Again, nothing in science is 100% a fact since you cannot prove that we are in a simulation, for instance so that argument can be used for literally anything, however as I said numerous times, evolution is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence we have, if you have a better one, simply propose it. So far no one has done it. Did you not look at what you just posted?: "... we take them to another environment and they change." So, you set up an experiment and it worked out according to your plans, or at least according to your observations. What does this have to do with nature changing some microbe into all the various plants and animals over, possibly, millions of years? Part of the big failure of evolution is that we aren't finding any evolution happening in nature. If we find something that looks like evolution, so far we have always found that it could be something else that we are seeing... something other than evolution. So, it isn't proof for evolution. In our recent studies of the complexities of life, we have found that if evolution theory were the way that life happened, that it would have taken countless billions of years longer than our longest Big Bang timetables suggest. We simply didn't have the tools ten years ago to examine the complexities of life like we have today. Darwin had the same problem. He didn't have the tools to show him all kinds of complexities. And all of this calculation is with the most favorable for evolution ecologies in mind. If you use logic the way that things really happen, evolution would be drowned out by the odds against it way before it had any kind of a chance ot happen at all. In other words, evolutionists are trying to talk people into the evolution odds thing in reverse of the way things happen. In other words, we don't find any evolution happening for sure. And our abilities to find it are inadequate as shown by the fact that we aren't finding any. So, we were simply mistaken when we said evolution existed. But since we don't admit it, but continue to maintain the charade... Evolution is a hoax. You just said evolution doesnt use the scientific method and now you complain that we did experiments and went right according to previous observations? It shows that if those lizards had to change their environment for whatever reason they would have evolved accordingly, its a pretty clear proof of evidence lol. Its not hard to see how they could turn into another animal after a while if they were able to develop a whole new valve after such a short period of time. |
|
|
|
|
Well, no one is forcing you to go to the US although the measure is quite ridiculous, it's their right to ask for it, I mean I get it, we all want privacy but why have a social media account then? Goes to show that it's much better to not have one.
|
|
|
|
^^^ You just don't get it, do you. ALL examples of evolution theory evolution are simply talk with no proof to back them up. All that the best of them do is show some real evidence of adaptation that could be attributed to ETE or something else. As such, they don't prove ETE. Until you look at the science involved in so-called ETE, you won't see that there is no ETE proof according to the scientific method... except one. That proof is political science, which says to keep on talking until people believe you even if there is no other proof. That's all you have for ETE... political science. If you are honest, you have been duped and are simply comfortable in that state. If you aren't honest, you are a troll. Evolution is a hoax. What do you understand as proof exactly? The evidence is extremely clear, we have a few lizards, we take them to another environment and they change, adapt and finally evolve and all of them become a different type of lizard, how is that not proof? Evolution is consistently tested through the scientific method, see: https://www.ibiology.org/sessions/session-4-evolution-measured/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231164743.htm''In the absence of any other validated hypothesis, the Theory of Evolution stands as the most logical conclusion.'' Again, nothing in science is 100% a fact since you cannot prove that we are in a simulation, for instance so that argument can be used for literally anything, however as I said numerous times, evolution is the most logical conclusion based on the evidence we have, if you have a better one, simply propose it. So far no one has done it. |
|
|
|
Bitgoals is not listed on any exchange. At the end of this month bitgoals dev team will announce exchange listings on telegram. This isnot bitgoal smart contract? It is but it's not traded in any exchanges, that's only forkdelta which is a dex, all tokens are listed there whether we want it or not. There have been numerous trades but not that many recently. The average trading price at forkdelta for STP was 1 STP = 0.07$ |
|
|
|
Why? Because any people that do this are part of the religion of Satan, even if they do not know it. In the Revelation in the Bible, Satan is called Abaddon and Apollyon. These names mean destroyer. Don't worry, plenty of killings have happened in the name of your god too, in fact god himself killed a ton of people, many times, he also ordered other people to kill others, including their babies, not to mention slavery or rape. |
|
|
|
Countries can't even help themselves imagine having to help a whole continent far away that has far more problems. Is the poverty rate zero in America or Europe? Of course not, do we not have people dying here? Do we not have children starving? We do, clearly in lower rates but we do, how is it possible that in a 1st world country children are still dying from not eating, how do we still have people without houses? Yes I know some of them do not deserve them but there are far too many that do and have or had jobs and still can't pay for them.
Starving because you are poor doesnt exists in the first world. Its basically a requirement for being first world. Being homeless in western and northern europe is not possible either, only if you choose yourself to be homeless. What a load of crap. In spain many families are thrown out of their houses : https://www.lasexta.com/programas/mas-vale-tarde/noticias/desahuciados-con-mas-de-70-anos-seguimos-sin-tener-una-ley-en-espana-que-garantice-el-derecho-a-la-vivienda_201809255baa6d7b0cf22905f4d3b147.htmlIf you need translation, the title literally says, Spain still has no law that guarantees the right to a house. The old couple didn't have enough money to pay the rent and couldn't do anything at 70 years old, they were thrown out of their home, you actually think they chose to? This is not one case either, it happened hundreds of times. Wake up. Doesnt spain has social securities? I.e. if you are cant afford a home in germany you just go the office for social welfare and get a appartment fully paid with everything you need to live - basically no questions asked. Seems spain is not part of the first world then or you are posting fake news. No, it seems that you refuse to look at reality, you are one of those people who think all homeless people are lazy and that's why they are homeless, spain is full of corruption just like many other 1st world countries, political parties steal hundreds of millions here, wake the fuck up bro. Corruption exists everywhere. It still doesnt reject the reality that you can instantly get food or a home via social welfare if you cannot afford it in the first world. You can usually get food but not a home, although a lot of people do get homes here for free, not all of them do, why do you think they are homeless people then if they can simply get a home through social welfare? A lot of old people are getting thrown out of their homes here because they can't pay, do you think they wanted that? They worked their whole life to get thrown out, there are numerous stories about it. |
|
|
|
Countries can't even help themselves imagine having to help a whole continent far away that has far more problems. Is the poverty rate zero in America or Europe? Of course not, do we not have people dying here? Do we not have children starving? We do, clearly in lower rates but we do, how is it possible that in a 1st world country children are still dying from not eating, how do we still have people without houses? Yes I know some of them do not deserve them but there are far too many that do and have or had jobs and still can't pay for them.
Starving because you are poor doesnt exists in the first world. Its basically a requirement for being first world. Being homeless in western and northern europe is not possible either, only if you choose yourself to be homeless. What a load of crap. In spain many families are thrown out of their houses : https://www.lasexta.com/programas/mas-vale-tarde/noticias/desahuciados-con-mas-de-70-anos-seguimos-sin-tener-una-ley-en-espana-que-garantice-el-derecho-a-la-vivienda_201809255baa6d7b0cf22905f4d3b147.htmlIf you need translation, the title literally says, Spain still has no law that guarantees the right to a house. The old couple didn't have enough money to pay the rent and couldn't do anything at 70 years old, they were thrown out of their home, you actually think they chose to? This is not one case either, it happened hundreds of times. Wake up. Doesnt spain has social securities? I.e. if you are cant afford a home in germany you just go the office for social welfare and get a appartment fully paid with everything you need to live - basically no questions asked. Seems spain is not part of the first world then or you are posting fake news. No, it seems that you refuse to look at reality, you are one of those people who think all homeless people are lazy and that's why they are homeless, spain is full of corruption just like many other 1st world countries, political parties steal hundreds of millions here, wake the fuck up bro. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
