Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.

[1715341569]

1715341569

[1715341569]

1715341569

[1715341569]

1715341569

[BADecker]

Well you said that all the scientific evidence for evolution would fit better for creation so why don't we have a creation theory if what you said it's true?

If there isn't any creation theory, it's because no scientist made one up, yet. We both know that the body of science writing is so great, that we don't know that there isn't any creation theory.

[Astargath]

Well you said that all the scientific evidence for evolution would fit better for creation so why don't we have a creation theory if what you said it's true?

If there isn't any creation theory, it's because no scientist made one up, yet. We both know that the body of science writing is so great, that we don't know that there isn't any creation theory.

Yet you believe they made a hoax one but the one that's real, has no scientific theory? Makes sense to me

[Astargath]

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.

I already did, radioactive decay, until you prove there isn't pure random all you are saying is bullshit.

[BADecker]

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.

But even if there were random mutations, the odds are very great that beneficial random mutations would be far fewer in number than detrimental mutations. Their cumulative effect would be overcome by the detrimental mutations, and by the vast amount of places where no mutations occur, that they would be destroyed long before they could advance into some kind of evolution change.

Survival of the fittest would destroy the beneficial changes in just the same way that evolutionists try to use them to show evolutionary advances, but even more, because there are way few beneficial changes compared with detrimental changes and no changes. In fact, a beneficial mutation has not really been observed ever. There is no way to logically suggest beneficial mutations could survive, even if we could find one.

[BADecker]

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.

I already did, radioactive decay, until you prove there isn't pure random all you are saying is bullshit.

And I already showed you that when scientists make new elements that decay, they have created radioactive decay in the lab. Cause and effect.

[BADecker]

Well you said that all the scientific evidence for evolution would fit better for creation so why don't we have a creation theory if what you said it's true?

If there isn't any creation theory, it's because no scientist made one up, yet. We both know that the body of science writing is so great, that we don't know that there isn't any creation theory.

Yet you believe they made a hoax one but the one that's real, has no scientific theory? Makes sense to me

Didn't I just say that there isn't any creation theory that we know of? Can't you read?

[Astargath]

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.

But even if there were random mutations, the odds are very great that beneficial random mutations would be far fewer in number than detrimental mutations. Their cumulative effect would be overcome by the detrimental mutations, and by the vast amount of places where no mutations occur, that they would be destroyed long before they could advance into some kind of evolution change.

Survival of the fittest would destroy the beneficial changes in just the same way that evolutionists try to use them to show evolutionary advances, but even more, because there are way few beneficial changes compared with detrimental changes and no changes. In fact, a beneficial mutation has not really been observed ever. There is no way to logically suggest beneficial mutations could survive, even if we could find one.

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

[Astargath]

Well you said that all the scientific evidence for evolution would fit better for creation so why don't we have a creation theory if what you said it's true?

If there isn't any creation theory, it's because no scientist made one up, yet. We both know that the body of science writing is so great, that we don't know that there isn't any creation theory.

Yet you believe they made a hoax one but the one that's real, has no scientific theory? Makes sense to me

Didn't I just say that there isn't any creation theory that we know of? Can't you read?

''that we know of'' What you mean, that we know of. There isn't one because there is not even 1 single piece of evidence for it lmao.

[Astargath]

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.

I already did, radioactive decay, until you prove there isn't pure random all you are saying is bullshit.

And I already showed you that when scientists make new elements that decay, they have created radioactive decay in the lab. Cause and effect.

ROFL. What does that mean? You are saying that elements don't decay on their own or what's your argument here, I'm confused, you are just making things up now.

[BADecker]

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

You missed the part about cause and effect directing the mutations coming into being. This means that they don't really even fit the definition of mutation, even though they are something not normally seen.

[BADecker]

Well you said that all the scientific evidence for evolution would fit better for creation so why don't we have a creation theory if what you said it's true?

If there isn't any creation theory, it's because no scientist made one up, yet. We both know that the body of science writing is so great, that we don't know that there isn't any creation theory.

Yet you believe they made a hoax one but the one that's real, has no scientific theory? Makes sense to me

Didn't I just say that there isn't any creation theory that we know of? Can't you read?

''that we know of'' What you mean, that we know of. There isn't one because there is not even 1 single piece of evidence for it lmao.

There is lots of evidence for it. It's just that the financial powers that be have gone the route of not being interested in someone developing on. But if it has been developed, it simply has not been advertised.

[Astargath]

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

You missed the part about cause and effect directing the mutations coming into being. This means that they don't really even fit the definition of mutation, even though they are something not normally seen.

When you prove that everything has a cause, which you haven't yet I will agree with you.

[BADecker]

ROFL. What does that mean? You are saying that elements don't decay on their own or what's your argument here, I'm confused, you are just making things up now.

Well, of course, you're confused. That is the issue, or I wouldn't be responding to your confusion.

I'm saying that elements decay via cause and effect, just like everything else works through cause and effect. Is there a solid science theory that shows that elements don't decay by cause and effect? Cause and effect fits everything, because everything has action of some sort.

[Flying Hellfish]

ROFL. What does that mean? You are saying that elements don't decay on their own or what's your argument here, I'm confused, you are just making things up now.

Well, of course, you're confused. That is the issue, or I wouldn't be responding to your confusion.

I'm saying that elements decay via cause and effect, just like everything else works through cause and effect. Is there a solid science theory that shows that elements don't decay by cause and effect? Cause and effect fits everything, because everything has action of some sort.

So what is the cause of god?

[Flying Hellfish]

There is lots of evidence for it. It's just that the financial powers that be have gone the route of not being interested in someone developing on. But if it has been developed, it simply has not been advertised.

Or you could go with the real reason why we don't have a Scientific Theory of god which is clearly that such a Theory simply by nature can never pass the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

The vast majority of you posts are full of blatant bullshit, made up things from your crazy brain and flagrant misrepresentations.

I mean I get why your posts are full of that shit, it's literally all you have.

It's quite amusing to watch someone who has almost 0 understanding of the ACTUAL Scientific Theory of Evolution trying to argue against it.

You are so much like the Flat Earthers it's fucking creepy.

Go back to your incest filled, child killing, slavery manual written by warmongering goat herders that couldn't even fucking write at the time of supposed divination.

Leave science to people with an actual ability to think critically.

[BADecker]

There is lots of evidence for it. It's just that the financial powers that be have gone the route of not being interested in someone developing on. But if it has been developed, it simply has not been advertised.

Or you could go with the real reason why we don't have a Scientific Theory of god which is clearly that such a Theory simply by nature can never pass the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

The vast majority of you posts are full of blatant bullshit, made up things from your crazy brain and flagrant misrepresentations.

I mean I get why your posts are full of that shit, it's literally all you have.

It's quite amusing to watch someone who has almost 0 understanding of the ACTUAL Scientific Theory of Evolution trying to argue against it.

You are so much like the Flat Earthers it's fucking creepy.

Go back to your incest filled, child killing, slavery manual written by warmongering goat herders that couldn't even fucking write at the time of supposed divination.

Leave science to people with an actual ability to think critically.

I don't blame you. Since your religion obviously doesn't include God, I can understand how you would be upset to find that God exists. But don't you want the truth? Consider:

Cause and effect, something that shows scientifically that everything is programmed to act the way it does within the whole universe, almost proves that God exists all by itself (C&E)!

You should study a little before you use defamatory statements.

This is the "Evolution is a hoax" thread. But I don't blame you for forgetting that part of this thread. Why not? It's so easy to realize that C&E proves God at the same time it disprove the evolution presented by evolution theory.

However, don't you want to find the real religion? Why would you continue with the foolish religion of evolution, and the foolish religion that doesn't have God in it? Think... so that you can live in reality rather than science fiction as you are living.

[Flying Hellfish]

There is lots of evidence for it. It's just that the financial powers that be have gone the route of not being interested in someone developing on. But if it has been developed, it simply has not been advertised.

Or you could go with the real reason why we don't have a Scientific Theory of god which is clearly that such a Theory simply by nature can never pass the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

The vast majority of you posts are full of blatant bullshit, made up things from your crazy brain and flagrant misrepresentations.

I mean I get why your posts are full of that shit, it's literally all you have.

It's quite amusing to watch someone who has almost 0 understanding of the ACTUAL Scientific Theory of Evolution trying to argue against it.

You are so much like the Flat Earthers it's fucking creepy.

Go back to your incest filled, child killing, slavery manual written by warmongering goat herders that couldn't even fucking write at the time of supposed divination.

Leave science to people with an actual ability to think critically.

I don't blame you. Since your religion obviously doesn't include God, I can understand how you would be upset to find that God exists. But don't you want the truth? Consider:

Cause and effect, something that shows scientifically that everything is programmed to act the way it does within the whole universe, almost proves that God exists all by itself (C&E)!

You should study a little before you use defamatory statements.

This is the "Evolution is a hoax" thread. But I don't blame you for forgetting that part of this thread. Why not? It's so easy to realize that C&E proves God at the same time it disprove the evolution presented by evolution theory.

However, don't you want to find the real religion? Why would you continue with the foolish religion of evolution, and the foolish religion that doesn't have God in it? Think... so that you can live in reality rather than science fiction as you are living.

Answer the question:  WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF GOD

Since according to you EVERYTHING has a cause...

[BADecker]

There is lots of evidence for it. It's just that the financial powers that be have gone the route of not being interested in someone developing on. But if it has been developed, it simply has not been advertised.

Or you could go with the real reason why we don't have a Scientific Theory of god which is clearly that such a Theory simply by nature can never pass the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

The vast majority of you posts are full of blatant bullshit, made up things from your crazy brain and flagrant misrepresentations.

I mean I get why your posts are full of that shit, it's literally all you have.

It's quite amusing to watch someone who has almost 0 understanding of the ACTUAL Scientific Theory of Evolution trying to argue against it.

You are so much like the Flat Earthers it's fucking creepy.

Go back to your incest filled, child killing, slavery manual written by warmongering goat herders that couldn't even fucking write at the time of supposed divination.

Leave science to people with an actual ability to think critically.

I don't blame you. Since your religion obviously doesn't include God, I can understand how you would be upset to find that God exists. But don't you want the truth? Consider:

Cause and effect, something that shows scientifically that everything is programmed to act the way it does within the whole universe, almost proves that God exists all by itself (C&E)!

You should study a little before you use defamatory statements.

This is the "Evolution is a hoax" thread. But I don't blame you for forgetting that part of this thread. Why not? It's so easy to realize that C&E proves God at the same time it disprove the evolution presented by evolution theory.

However, don't you want to find the real religion? Why would you continue with the foolish religion of evolution, and the foolish religion that doesn't have God in it? Think... so that you can live in reality rather than science fiction as you are living.

Answer the question:  WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF GOD

Since according to you EVERYTHING has a cause...

First prove that God is a thing/a something/an everything. Once you prove that, then we can start to determine what God's cause might be. Up until then, we don't know that He needs a cause.

[Flying Hellfish]

There is lots of evidence for it. It's just that the financial powers that be have gone the route of not being interested in someone developing on. But if it has been developed, it simply has not been advertised.

Or you could go with the real reason why we don't have a Scientific Theory of god which is clearly that such a Theory simply by nature can never pass the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

The vast majority of you posts are full of blatant bullshit, made up things from your crazy brain and flagrant misrepresentations.

I mean I get why your posts are full of that shit, it's literally all you have.

It's quite amusing to watch someone who has almost 0 understanding of the ACTUAL Scientific Theory of Evolution trying to argue against it.

You are so much like the Flat Earthers it's fucking creepy.

Go back to your incest filled, child killing, slavery manual written by warmongering goat herders that couldn't even fucking write at the time of supposed divination.

Leave science to people with an actual ability to think critically.

I don't blame you. Since your religion obviously doesn't include God, I can understand how you would be upset to find that God exists. But don't you want the truth? Consider:

Cause and effect, something that shows scientifically that everything is programmed to act the way it does within the whole universe, almost proves that God exists all by itself (C&E)!

You should study a little before you use defamatory statements.

This is the "Evolution is a hoax" thread. But I don't blame you for forgetting that part of this thread. Why not? It's so easy to realize that C&E proves God at the same time it disprove the evolution presented by evolution theory.

However, don't you want to find the real religion? Why would you continue with the foolish religion of evolution, and the foolish religion that doesn't have God in it? Think... so that you can live in reality rather than science fiction as you are living.

Answer the question:  WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF GOD

Since according to you EVERYTHING has a cause...

First prove that God is a thing/a something/an everything. Once you prove that, then we can start to determine what God's cause might be. Up until then, we don't know that He needs a cause.

So you're saying he doesn't exist then. Thanks, I agree god is nothing!