The vaccine science EVOLUTION contradiction (video)

[protokol]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

[BADecker]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

[protokol]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

[BADecker]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and  are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

Although abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different studies in science, they both work through a similar process... evolution/change/mutation. It is impossible in the scheme of things to ignore one in favor of the other. Mentally we can compartmentalize. In reality, they are connected. What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.

The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math.

Btw, the "many other fields" are entirely inconclusive. They only serve as areas of science fiction with regard to every form of evolution/change from inorganic through any stage to fully developed mankind.



EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand.

[protokol]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and  are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

...

What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible.

...

The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math.

...

EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand.

OK, looks like you don't understand what the words "probability", "math", "mutation" or "evolution" mean, quite possibly all four.

I'm out, have a good day.

[BADecker]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and  are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

...

What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible.

...

The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math.

...

EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand.

OK, looks like you don't understand what the words "probability", "math", "mutation" or "evolution" mean, quite possibly all four.

I'm out, have a good day.

Actually, I understand them quite well. What you don't understand (except that you are intentionally part of the deception), is that there are scientists all over the place who are unwilling to look at the fact that probability math doesn't allow for evolution, and that mutation is destructive mutation, not beneficial mutation. While science can imagine these things, there is no fact showing that they actually exist (beneficial mutation and evolution), except a little bit, sort of, when they are created in the lab.