Evolution is a hoax

[Betszkie12]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

Yes, how could monkeys be still present if they have evolved? There are really similarities but it does not mean that they are products of evolution. But I do believe that they live similarly made creations of a supreme being. Some are mistakes of nature, propably during the transfer of genes to another offspring where they appear erroneous and resulted in a different looking offspring like for example a lizard that is born looking like a snake.

[prasanna1992]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

[Przemax]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

Nope. Noone had ever seen even in the thousands of years the appearance of any new specie anywhere on earth. What we could see is the natural selection. Yes that exist. One specie can die, and the other can adapt but still is a specie of that kind - it can breed with the the same speciments. It all comes to a taxonomy. Nowadays "evolutionists" call subspecies a new specie. There is no reason to have a subspecie taxonomy if a two speciments of subspecie can interbreed - it is still a specie. Lion is still a cat, tiger is still a cat and cat is still a cat, they all can interbreed. There is an urban legend that those species are infertile, it was proven to be false.

There are some rare instances of partial infertility proven scientificly within the so called ring species. But it is nowhere near to prove that a cat is not cat anymore for example.

Noone has ever seen evolution in action, only so called adaption and natural selection. Noone. So logical conclusion must be that it must take more than thounsands of years - millions.

That is not science. Sorry. You just can not assume something has happened because it is possible. Someone will say - hey the God theory is not a science as well. I agree. Both are not science. Period. However one or another would try, it is imposible to say you have seen something when you have not. Period.

I have not claimed I saw God either. I am only convinced based on how everything is constructed, how life works, and how everything interact with eachother. It is a waaaaaay smarter guess than the evolution if you find out the evolutionists lie and cheat.

Where are those "ape-like" ancestors? None were found. Why do people say that they saw things that they did not? It is called a patological lies, and definatly not a science.

By the way. Evolutionists love the argument that if you do not believe in evolution you must think that God had made it. No way......... There are a lot of people that say the evolution is a lie, and they are 100% atheists. I was one of such a guy. It is just easier to believe in God if you do not believe your fellow human liars, thats all. They throw a stumbling block on you.

Those kind of proponents of evolution think that when they promote their point of view they are opposed by the God. NO! They are opposed by the truth. And it so happens to be that the God is on the truth side 100% times. Coincidence?

It just proves the words of the Jesus - Know the truth and truth will set you free. What truth? That we are an apes? To the contrary - that we are not. We are a children of God.

There are a lot of people that are just afraid of freedom. They like their little confinement. Ok. Let them be. I do not mind their choices. Just do not claim your lack of perspective is the whole picture.

[Astargath]

Evolution is a process where species change and adapt for them to be able to survive. Evolution is a long process, it could take hundreds of years, centuries, or even thousands of years. Also, the scientific theory of the evolution of man does not specifically mentioned monkeys; it only mentioned that man came from "ape-like" ancestors. In addition to that, to support my above mentioned statement, according to my research, the whole process of the evolution of man took about over a period of approximately millions of years.

Nope. Noone had ever seen even in the thousands of years the appearance of any new specie anywhere on earth. What we could see is the natural selection. Yes that exist. One specie can die, and the other can adapt but still is a specie of that kind - it can breed with the the same speciments. It all comes to a taxonomy. Nowadays "evolutionists" call subspecies a new specie. There is no reason to have a subspecie taxonomy if a two speciments of subspecie can interbreed - it is still a specie. Lion is still a cat, tiger is still a cat and cat is still a cat, they all can interbreed. There is an urban legend that those species are infertile, it was proven to be false.

There are some rare instances of partial infertility proven scientificly within the so called ring species. But it is nowhere near to prove that a cat is not cat anymore for example.

Noone has ever seen evolution in action, only so called adaption and natural selection. Noone. So logical conclusion must be that it must take more than thounsands of years - millions.

That is not science. Sorry. You just can not assume something has happened because it is possible. Someone will say - hey the God theory is not a science as well. I agree. Both are not science. Period. However one or another would try, it is imposible to say you have seen something when you have not. Period.

I have not claimed I saw God either. I am only convinced based on how everything is constructed, how life works, and how everything interact with eachother. It is a waaaaaay smarter guess than the evolution if you find out the evolutionists lie and cheat.

Where are those "ape-like" ancestors? None were found. Why do people say that they saw things that they did not? It is called a patological lies, and definatly not a science.

By the way. Evolutionists love the argument that if you do not believe in evolution you must think that God had made it. No way......... There are a lot of people that say the evolution is a lie, and they are 100% atheists. I was one of such a guy. It is just easier to believe in God if you do not believe your fellow human liars, thats all. They throw a stumbling block on you.

Those kind of proponents of evolution think that when they promote their point of view they are opposed by the God. NO! They are opposed by the truth. And it so happens to be that the God is on the truth side 100% times. Coincidence?

It just proves the words of the Jesus - Know the truth and truth will set you free. What truth? That we are an apes? To the contrary - that we are not. We are a children of God.

There are a lot of people that are just afraid of freedom. They like their little confinement. Ok. Let them be. I do not mind their choices. Just do not claim your lack of perspective is the whole picture.

''I have not claimed I saw God either. I am only convinced based on how everything is constructed, how life works, and how everything interact with eachother. It is a waaaaaay smarter guess than the evolution if you find out the evolutionists lie and cheat.''

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

''Noone has ever seen evolution in action'' No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person, yet they are still able to identify the killer based on evidence just like scientists are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there. Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real, only a few radicals like you or badecker are against it in 2018. Good luck in real life dude.

[Przemax]

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

Yeah. True. Religious people lie. Bible don't as far as I am aware.

No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person,

Well... No. Actually the staging of the crime scene is a very weak empirical evidence, but evidence none the less if it is enacted with the logical framework of other clues. Noone had staged the evolution. Find another similiarities.

Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real,

No. Not most of them. You lie. The data shows something close to 50% depending on religion. I have nothing to do with them. Why do you compare me with them? That is not an argument.

I have told you. There are a lot of atheist that deny evolution. And I was one of them.

You make yet another logical fallacy - now using the error of equivocation.

Good luck in real life dude.

Good that you have pointed that out - in my real life I have not seen evolution, nor anyone for that matter. So yeah.... who is detached from reality here?

are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there

Like what evidence? I have just told you noone had ever made a new specie, and by specie I mean the new speciment that cannot interbreed with any other speciments of the same specie, but can interbreed with the similiar speciments.

AND THAT IS THE EVOLUTION.

[Astargath]

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

Yeah. True. Religious people lie. Bible don't as far as I am aware.

No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person,

Well... No. Actually the staging of the crime scene is a very weak empirical evidence, but evidence none the less if it is enacted with the logical framework of other clues. Noone had staged the evolution. Find another similiarities.

Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real,

No. Not most of them. You lie. The data shows something close to 50% depending on religion. I have nothing to do with them. Why do you compare me with them? That is not an argument.

I have told you. There are a lot of atheist that deny evolution. And I was one of them.

You make yet another logical fallacy - now using the error of equivocation.

Good luck in real life dude.

Good that you have pointed that out - in my real life I have not seen evolution, nor anyone for that matter. So yeah.... who is detached from reality here?

are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there

Like what evidence? I have just told you noone had ever made a new specie, and by specie I mean the new speciment that cannot interbreed with any other speciments of the same specie, but can interbreed with the similiar speciments.

AND THAT IS THE EVOLUTION.

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

[BADecker]

Religious people lie and cheat too, all the indirect evidence for evolution is more than enough for scientists to conclude evolution is a fact. Even if there weren't any cases of observed evolution, which there are, evolution would still be true.

Yeah. True. Religious people lie. Bible don't as far as I am aware.

No one has ever seen plenty of things in action, we wouldn't have homicides detectives if you always had to observe someone killing another person,

Well... No. Actually the staging of the crime scene is a very weak empirical evidence, but evidence none the less if it is enacted with the logical framework of other clues. Noone had staged the evolution. Find another similiarities.

Most religious people actually agree that evolution is real,

No. Not most of them. You lie. The data shows something close to 50% depending on religion. I have nothing to do with them. Why do you compare me with them? That is not an argument.

I have told you. There are a lot of atheist that deny evolution. And I was one of them.

You make yet another logical fallacy - now using the error of equivocation.

Good luck in real life dude.

Good that you have pointed that out - in my real life I have not seen evolution, nor anyone for that matter. So yeah.... who is detached from reality here?

are able to conclude that evolution exists based on the VAST evidence out there

Like what evidence? I have just told you noone had ever made a new specie, and by specie I mean the new speciment that cannot interbreed with any other speciments of the same specie, but can interbreed with the similiar speciments.

AND THAT IS THE EVOLUTION.

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

Why do people who can't find any proof for evolution, continually talk like it is real, when all it is, is a religion? It's amazing that people talk themselves into believing something as silly as evolution, based on a lot of talk, and on a handful of things that can easily be judged to be something other than evolution.

Evolution at best is a religion, but because it is a false religion...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Przemax]

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

Why do you think I know nothing of evolution? I know more than you. I know there is no empirical evidence for it. Just a possibilities and assumptions. Those in my humble opinion should not be the basis to create your life ideology around. Just that.

I am not smarter than anyone. I admire someone spending so much energy and devotion to defend such a ridiculous idea to make it more believable. So I not only think Im not smarter than those people I am a lot less devoted than them.

Oh I do not even need to write anything on the subject of evolution. There are a lot of materials on the internet that absolutely demolish evolution. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38VngsfvMOs&index=6&list=PLvi3DA39DmAFRwMmadh6Nrkf8ognXmgnB

I would add that the unused organs dissapear - called Atrophy, that would prove evolution wrong as well, as the evolution claims that proves are within the remains of now unused organs. That is simply impossible because it violates the law of Atrophy of unused organs.

So the only one claim that is shouted everywhere, about supposedly unusuful part of the body, that was used by the specie that was evolved from is just impossible to happen as it violates scientific law.

That one is enough to prove that "evolutionists" are not credible, to say the least to be called a knowledgable and critically thinking people.

[wpalczynski]

This is so ridiculous, we didn't evolve from monkey... Nowaday monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor which disappeared since then. Evolution is the only theory that actually makes some sense. It might be proven wrong one day and I am sure that scientists will recongnize another truth if evolution gets overruled by evidence.

[Astargath]

Why people that know nothing about evolution think they can come to a forum and explain to us how evolution is not real? Shouldn't you go publish a paper dismissing evolution? Why do you think 99.99% of the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact? You think you are smarter than them because you read a few religious articles about evolution? What makes you think you you would even understand the evidence for it if you never studied about it?

Why do you think I know nothing of evolution? I know more than you. I know there is no empirical evidence for it. Just a possibilities and assumptions. Those in my humble opinion should not be the basis to create your life ideology around. Just that.

I am not smarter than anyone. I admire someone spending so much energy and devotion to defend such a ridiculous idea to make it more believable. So I not only think Im not smarter than those people I am a lot less devoted than them.

Oh I do not even need to write anything on the subject of evolution. There are a lot of materials on the internet that absolutely demolish evolution. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38VngsfvMOs&index=6&list=PLvi3DA39DmAFRwMmadh6Nrkf8ognXmgnB

I would add that the unused organs dissapear - called Atrophy, that would prove evolution wrong as well, as the evolution claims that proves are within the remains of now unused organs. That is simply impossible because it violates the law of Atrophy of unused organs.

So the only one claim that is shouted everywhere, about supposedly unusuful part of the body, that was used by the specie that was evolved from is just impossible to happen as it violates scientific law.

That one is enough to prove that "evolutionists" are not credible, to say the least to be called a knowledgable and critically thinking people.

Thanks for the video, It's a great example of how I know you don't know shit about evolution. It's also in the comments.

''This video begins with a straight-out lie, and gets worse throughout. In science, a theory is not a law, and never will be one. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is consistent with many observations of the phenomenon. A law is a simple statement of the relation between two or more quantities.''

''First of all, Law =/= theory. This is the first two fucking sentences in your video. A theory is an explanation based on evidence that has not been proven beyond a doubt but is most likely true. A law has been proven. If evolution had been disproven, it would be considered a debunked theory, and it wouldn't be a law even if it was proven, it would just be a phenomenon.''

See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?

[angelinakorenovskaya]

There is no axioms for the evolution, no metrics, no algebra, it's barely a science at all.

[Przemax]

"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"

Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.

It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.

It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.


 It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.

According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.



Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:

The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?

I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.

Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?

We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.

As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.

[Astargath]

"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"

Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.

It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.

It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.


 It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.

According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.



Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:

The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?

I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.

Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?

We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.

As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.

The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.

''Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.''

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-new-species-of-darwins-finch-evolved-in-just-two-generations/

Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.

[Przemax]

"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"

Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.

It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.

It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.


 It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.

According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.



Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:

The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?

I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.

Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?

We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.

As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.

The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.

''Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.''

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-new-species-of-darwins-finch-evolved-in-just-two-generations/

Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

"From the description, one would think that this was a very convincing example of macroevolution in action. Obviously, there must have been quite a number of massive mutations to produce an entirely new species that could not interbreed with the original. Right? Actually, every statement above is absolutely true. However, some of the important details have been intentionally left out, in order to make this example sound much better than it really is. Here is what actually happened.

The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. The original goatsbeards from Europe were standard diploid (two copies of each chromosome) plants. However, plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain diploid. When diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed. No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!), but the chromosomes are duplicated. The new "species" cannot produce viable offspring with the original species simply because of the difference in number of chromosomes.  With goatsbeards, the process has happened more than once. Of course, the two "new" species have the same number of chromosomes and can produce viable offspring, since they are virtually identical.

If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation.""

The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.

You conveniently leave out the parts of the movie I had gave you. And now you play ignorant that you do not know what I am talking about. How convenient. Just like your "evolutionists" masters of omision.

Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.

Nervous?

Now I know why it is called a theory - by ommision the unconvenient truth by a half truths. That is trully wicked way of tricking the science community. And to think all of that effort just to discredit the Holy Word.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

That does not meet the criterium of a definition of a new specie. Sorry to say that. It is just "so called" hybrydisation which means a breeding within the same specie, but for a convenience sake, and sake of their taxonomy called a different specie.

How come - when it came to the polyploid plants so called "evilutionists" knows exactly what is the definition of the specie, and when it come to the other species - they forget that? Im talking about this part:

They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.''

Classic definition.............. There is no other. At least there shouldn't be a switchy switchy with the definitions for convenience sake. That just proves we live in a totally wicked world if something like that happens.

Stop and think for a second. Doesn't that bother you? Are you so hopelessly tuned on to evolution that you are not even slightly critical, that something fishy is going on?

In one article they say that it is normal for hybridisation to have fertile offspring, on the other they say that hybrids are infertile. That should make your red light off - they are messing with your head by contradictory informations ok? They are preying on your ignorance.

If I will call myself a Cyborg and everybody would agree would that make me one? According to some self proclaimed scientist yeah.

Yeah I know you will say that my sources are not credible because they have God in the name of the page. You guys are predictible. You do not want to double check if that is true, you will just assume they are wrong because you are so SCIENCE POWER RANGERS... Sigh..... ehhhhh

[Astargath]

And you think evolution is wrong simply because in your mind it's against your god and you don't want any evidence against your fairy tail, otherwise what would you do, right? It's better to believe in a stupid religion, randomly chosen because you obviously do not believe in any of the other hundreds of religions, than accepting a well documented fact, evolution. Even if evolution was a total hoax your god would still be a fairy tail. You are not a scientist, are you? You just read articles, same as other people and them make your own conclusions, those conclusions are probably wrong since you don't know what you are talking about. You also probably never question anything else that doesn't attack your personal god like gravity or any other scientific theory because you don't care.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. The universe is shown to be old by several independent types of measurements.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html

There is a ton of evidence against your god yet you still believe all that crap.

[Przemax]

And you think evolution is wrong simply because in your mind it's against your god

I have told you two times it is not so. I was atheist the moment i figured out the evolution theory is highly unlikely for various of reasons. Mostly because of the writings of Lamarck - he was an atheist. I was not convinced what made life. But I was convinced it was some kind of will behind that. I was I suppose a bit gnostic by that time and I was convinced that the will of organisms make them so to speak, by their own actions and not by random mutations. I was a quasi evolutionist so to speak, but I was convinced that random mutations go against the biology and how it organise itself by acting and reacting.

So you completly read me wrong and judge me wrong.

you don't want any evidence against your fairy tail

Well... Again you read me wrong. I just proved your evidence is not true. That is a manipulation by omission.

otherwise what would you do, right?

If not believing in a supreme will -GOD I would believe in a creative force of action and will of living organisms that would make a lot more sense to me than a randomness that goes against the biology of organisms. So again - wrong.

It's better to believe in a stupid religion, randomly chosen because you obviously do not believe in any of the other hundreds of religions,

No... Most religions are very similiar to eachother and they are all wrong. Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth. You completly ignored my post and rant about me. Why? Have I said something that bothered you? Do you want to divert the subject from the manipulations that evolutionists make to justify their lack of success?

You are not a scientist, are you?

Science should be demonstrable and presentable to the non-scientist community. If it is not, it is not science, so your question is irrelevant, or at least it should be irrelevant in a world, that manipulation is not the key to success. If you ask if I have a higher degree from University, then yes I have. And I had the methodology of science studied there. I had also logic courses and courses how to aply logic and scientific methodology in my field. Not to mention the courses in statistics.

You just read articles, same as other people and them make your own conclusions, those conclusions are probably wrong since you don't know what you are talking about.

Those conclusions base on the basic informations that one can get in the biology classes in school where I live. That is not a secret to me how plants reproduce - that is a normal school curriculum here.

You also probably never question anything else that doesn't attack your personal god like gravity or any other scientific theory because you don't care.

Oh... I question everything my friend. Especially gravity. Ofcourse gravity exists but on some other principles - mainly electrical. It is 100% verifiable that one can make antigrav field using simple electro static charges.

I care about everything that is interesting. So again you judge me wrongly.

The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. The universe is shown to be old by several independent types of measurements.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html

So why they are admitting to only one? Because they know more than you know. They know it is a bull crap. And the ones they are using is the hardest to disprove because it involves having the expensive tools to experiment with radioactive izotopes.

There is a ton of evidence against your god yet you still believe all that crap.

Like? Listen....... 6k years people played your silly game of judging God. All were proven wrong. What makes you think you are special? All of them were fully convinced they had the reasons and "evidences" that the world had made itself. Epicureans, Libertines, Maniheists and so on and so forth. They were convinced in their "evidences". All are proven to worth nothing, as noone believes what they did back then. So will happen with the likes of you. There is no reason to suspect the otherwise. But history proves that it does not prove anything to anyone.

[Goldenoaks]

There's pretty clear proof behind evolution. How could something so universally accepted be a hoax?

[Przemax]

There's pretty clear proof behind evolution. How could something so universally accepted be a hoax?

Maybe because people do not understand the term evolution, and everyone is using their own definition. If evolution would mean what most people think it means - and that is - things change. Hey.... I would believe in evolution as well. Damn... things change... that's a fact. Some people think that evolution means natural selection and things change. So I am an evolutionist in that case. There are others that think that organisms adapts and that is an evolution. Well... then I am an evolutionists.... again. I agree with everything of that. So that leaves out 95% population that understand evolution wrong. The rest 5% of "evolutionists" think that Tiger and Lion can reproduce, even if they are a separate species in their point of view. Hey.... that means I am not an evolutionist only slightly. I agree they can reproduce, but then again calling them separate specie if they can produce the offsprings is wrong.. Only the 1% of evolutionist understand and believes that the evolution had created a new classically defined specie - a specie that is separate in breeding capabilities with other members of the previous specie.

In that case - I do not believe that. And Im not that kind of evolutionist. The funny thing is - 99% of people that think they understand evolution, thinks about other things, that is not an evolution, and call it evolution.

[Astargath]

''Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth.'' The logic of religious folks right there.

>The bible says god cannot lie
>Therefore god cannot lie
> I know this because it is said in the bible

There is 1 major problem, though. How do you know what the bible says is actually real? There are hundreds of other religious books and fictional books just like the bible

[Przemax]

''Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth.'' The logic of religious folks right there.

>The bible says god cannot lie
>Therefore god cannot lie
> I know this because it is said in the bible

There is 1 major problem, though. How do you know what the bible says is actually real? There are hundreds of other religious books and fictional books just like the bible

How do you know the world is real? You experience it that way right? The same with me and God. I have weird experiences, other people as well... and we all agree its God, as we have no other explanation for our sensations. If you would explain it to me how can I explain my feeling of being loved when there is absolutely no rational explanation for it I am all ears.

I might be making that up. But what is the difference if I feel it realisticly? Rational people should try everything, and if there would be a rational reason to believe evolution I would be first to study it. Convince me, or convince yourself to God.