Evolution is a hoax

[Matcuda]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

In your opinion, if you believe in evolution, then a person could grow horns or wings? But we must understand that a change in the species is implied only if this is influenced by certain aspects of his life. If we assume that a person is not from this world, then all animals and plants of the planet developed here.

What would be the purpose for a person to have horns or wings?  And would that be desirable for breeding?  I'm assuming it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need a practical answer

I would think that if survival and spreading seeds is the goal, as it seems to be for living things, then with natural selection, you'd want the most advantages to be able to survive.  The species would move towards breeding with those that have useful characteristics, and away from those that do not possess those useful characteristics, or be challenged with the competition of survival with less tools.

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

If you believe everything was created this way, then so be it.  Totally cool with me

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Then it can not be considered domestication by the end of evolution. The fact is that all living things on our planet as a clockwork mechanism have its beginning and its end. Apparently what we have today, it is the end result of all that happened Millions of years before.

[1714187851]

1714187851

[1714187851]

1714187851

[1714187851]

1714187851

[1714187851]

1714187851

[freeyourmind]

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Since I already noted that I don't have proof, and then you're now telling me that there is no proof (lol) I guess we are settled then.  Since you don't have any proof either, I guess we're in the same place aren't we?  

[BADecker]

In geology, we have found 2 or 3 times the number of fossils as there are living species. We really haven't found any missing links. But...

If there were all kinds of fossils out there, that were like missing links because of their similarities and slight differences, we still wouldn't know that they were part of evolution, or if they simply were all different species created by God.

You have to find living trans-species to know that fossils have evidence of evolution.

Evolution shoots itself down because it suggests a great expanse of time between changes that are recognizable as such. You might as well suggest that there isn't any evolution.

I'm just going to add in my 2 cents here for something that we can all relate to, which has happened right in front of us, and that's dog breeding.  All dog breeds originate from wolves, and humans have bred them to increase or decrease certain traits.  Now you have a husky, and you can say "Yeah I see the relationship between a husky and a wolf".  Then you have a chiwawa and the link to a wolf becomes really difficult to make any sense of.  It may look closer to a rat than it does to a wolf, but it's ancestor is a wolf.  This has happened over approximately 10,000 years of dog domestication and breeding.  So as the landscape of the earth has changed over time, why wouldn't species also change and adapt?

In your opinion, if you believe in evolution, then a person could grow horns or wings? But we must understand that a change in the species is implied only if this is influenced by certain aspects of his life. If we assume that a person is not from this world, then all animals and plants of the planet developed here.

What would be the purpose for a person to have horns or wings?  And would that be desirable for breeding?  I'm assuming it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need a practical answer

I would think that if survival and spreading seeds is the goal, as it seems to be for living things, then with natural selection, you'd want the most advantages to be able to survive.  The species would move towards breeding with those that have useful characteristics, and away from those that do not possess those useful characteristics, or be challenged with the competition of survival with less tools.

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

If you believe everything was created this way, then so be it.  Totally cool with me

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Then it can not be considered domestication by the end of evolution. The fact is that all living things on our planet as a clockwork mechanism have its beginning and its end. Apparently what we have today, it is the end result of all that happened Millions of years before.

There is no "apparentness" in this. Millions of years is all guess. Play with words if you want, but the fact is closer to all animals having been created with various levels of "domestication" built in. They have only become wild with the failure that sin brought into the world.

[BADecker]

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Since I already noted that I don't have proof, and then you're now telling me that there is no proof (lol) I guess we are settled then.  Since you don't have any proof either, I guess we're in the same place aren't we?  

There is a difference between you having proof, and there not being any proof.

Lots of people don't have proof for lots of things that many others do have proof for. In this case, there isn't any proof.

[freeyourmind]

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Since I already noted that I don't have proof, and then you're now telling me that there is no proof (lol) I guess we are settled then.  Since you don't have any proof either, I guess we're in the same place aren't we?  

There is a difference between you having proof, and there not being any proof.

Lots of people don't have proof for lots of things that many others do have proof for. In this case, there isn't any proof.

Perhaps there's a monkey out there that setup a camera thousands of years ago with a time-lapse video recording of how they lost their fur, started using tools and increased brain mass.  When I get a hold of that SD card...I'll come looking for ya 

[BADecker]

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Since I already noted that I don't have proof, and then you're now telling me that there is no proof (lol) I guess we are settled then.  Since you don't have any proof either, I guess we're in the same place aren't we?  

There is a difference between you having proof, and there not being any proof.

Lots of people don't have proof for lots of things that many others do have proof for. In this case, there isn't any proof.

Perhaps there's a monkey out there that setup a camera thousands of years ago with a time-lapse video recording of how they lost their fur, started using tools and increased brain mass.  When I get a hold of that SD card...I'll come looking for ya  

That's like thinking that we will invent time viewing and see evolution in process. But we might.

Consider this excerpt from Andre Norton's Galactic Derelict (http://www.luminist.org/archives/):

“Now if a man had some way to look back into history he could learn a lot—“

 “You mean by using an infra-red Vis-Tex?” Travis asked with careful casualness, and had the satisfaction of seeing the other’s calm crack. Then he laughed, with an edge on his humor. “We Indians don’t wear blankets or feathers in our hair any more, and some of us read and watch TV, and actually go to school. But the Vis-Tex I saw in action wasn’t too successful.” He decided on a guess. “Planning to test a new model here?”

 “In a way—yes.”

 Travis had not expected a serious answer like that. And it was Ashe who had made it, plainly to the surprise of Ross. But the possibilities opened up by that assent were startling.

 Photographing the past, beginning with a few hours past, by the infra-red waves, had succeeded in experimentation as far back as twenty years previously—during the late fifties. The process had been perfected to a point where objects would appear on films exposed a week after the disappearance of those objects from a given point. And Travis had been present on one occasion when an experimental Vis-Tex had been demonstrated by Dr. Morgan. But if they did have a new model which could produce a real reach back into history—! He drew a deep breath and stared at the cave-enclosed ruins before him. What would it mean to bring the past to visual life again! Then he grinned.

 “A lot of history will have to be rewritten in a hurry if you have one that works.”

[matchi2011]

I don't have a straight answer, nor do I have proof, or even the thought or desire to convince anyone's belief system to be any different than it is.

There is no proof for the things you say.

It could just as easily be that 6000 years ago nearly all animals were domesticated. Then, gradually, the domestication was wiped out because of entropy in general. A few of the animals hang on to their domestication.

Since I already noted that I don't have proof, and then you're now telling me that there is no proof (lol) I guess we are settled then.  Since you don't have any proof either, I guess we're in the same place aren't we?  

There is a difference between you having proof, and there not being any proof.

Lots of people don't have proof for lots of things that many others do have proof for. In this case, there isn't any proof.

Perhaps there's a monkey out there that setup a camera thousands of years ago with a time-lapse video recording of how they lost their fur, started using tools and increased brain mass.  When I get a hold of that SD card...I'll come looking for ya 

If you look at it that way, we won't really have any way to know for sure how our specie came about. We have to have spawn from something. And as of today, there are no other theories about where we came from that makes more sense than that of evolution.

[Moloch]

The evidence for evolution is ample, and encompasses several different fields of science

There is geographical evidence... different species of similar animals are separated by geographical divides (implying they evolved after the groups separated)

There is archaeological evidence... skulls and bones showing changes over time

There is genetic evidence... humans are 98%+ similar to chimpanzees

There is embryonic evidence... you can watch a human embryo change into amphibian and reptilian forms before becoming human

Humans have vestigial organs like the appendix



What evidence do you have for creationism? (your dusty old book is not evidence)

[BADecker]

Pick up and read almost any good or popular science fiction story, or a good novel, perhaps. One of the things that makes the story interesting is its believability. In order to make it believable, the author has to take all of the common life facts available, and add some elements of non-fact to it, and add an unique twist.

That's what the evolution idea is. It's a story that has a lot of facts put together in new and novel ways. It's just like a science fiction story or novel.

The thing that makes evolution just an idea is, 100% of the facts that evolutionists uses to evidence or prove evolution, can be applied to other ideas in other ways which don't involve the evolution fiction at all (those ideas that are not complete non-fact, that is). Possibly the greatest of these is the scientific law of cause and effect.

In-depth examination of the science law of cause and effect shows that every molecule, every atom, every subatomic particle, every wave of photons that make up light, have all been caused to act as they do by one or many similar or different particles acting on them, causing them to act as they do.

There isn't even the slightest bit of random in all this. If there were, we would see a breakdown of the laws of physics in the universe. And the breakdown of even the "weakest" law of physics would probably cause the destruction of the whole universe, instantaneously.

What does this have to do with evolution? The things that the evolutionist calls evolution, were set in place in a very orderly fashion, by whatever set cause and effect in place. This means that it was essentially programmed. Programming means intelligence... the programmer.

Observe the pandemonium that exists within the exploding hydrogen bomb. Every last atom and molecule in that explosion acts exactly according to preset laws of physics. Not one particle, not one energy wave, not even the tiniest movement, acts outside the parameters of physics. All of it follows precise laws of cause and effect in continual operation... the effect of the last cause becoming the cause of the next effect.

There isn't any evolution in the sense that evolutionists suggest. There might be definitions of the word "evolution" that make it simply cause and effect change. If there are, why don't evolutionists use it with the explanation of what they are doing? After all, cause and effect has been around forever that we know, and all scientist, evolution or otherwise, know and understand it.

So, why don't evolutionist explain their evidence using the cause and effect idea? Because the science fiction called evolution would be gone. And since they don't want it to be gone, they are perpetrating a hoax... the evolution hoax.

[ImHash]

What are we evolving to if evolution by nature was a random event? when you think about it, how could a single cell know that it needs to evolve into something more complex and smarter? you can't have a creature with the IQ of 2 evolving into a creature with the IQ of 3 because in order to have 3 you'll need to have 4 and for having 4 you'll need to have 5 and it goes to the point where you'll understand there is a creator to everything.

[PhreakMajor]

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

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

Monkeys weren't an ancestor of humans? Much like house cats and lions.

[flekkelek]

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

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

Monkeys weren't an ancestor of humans? Much like house cats and lions.

Domesticating and breeding are not the exact same things as evolution. You can't see the humans' ancestors now because they evolved into humans.

[mariahh]

This is an interesting thread.To say the truth I don't believe we are made from God, or anyone else as there is a huge variety of human beings from protozoa to people.From the other side I think science has not prooved this theory (except of Charles Darwin origin of species).However I understand that no one likes the idea of beeing a monkey,but one thing is sure evolution is happening from the ancient time.We started from hunters in the caves and we have been an organized social community at a huge time.

[Astargath]

Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is what explains the fact. You dont have to believe in evolution. Anyone who denies evolution is very ignorant (99.9% are religious) evolution has been applied successfully to numerous scientific advancements. They only try to deny evolution because they think god did it.

[BADecker]

Depending on what the definition of "evolution" might be, evolution could conceivably be true. For example, if "evolution" simply means "change," then it is true. There are changes going on all around us and within us all the time.

If, however, the meaning of evolution includes going from inanimate to living material over time, then evolution is false. If the meaning of evolution includes changing from one species to another, then the meaning of evolution is false. All such proclamations of this happening have either, no evidence, or evidence that can be applied to other things, as well, thereby making such a form of evolution inconclusive.

If evolution is simply change, why not use the word "change?"

[Astargath]

Depending on what the definition of "evolution" might be, evolution could conceivably be true. For example, if "evolution" simply means "change," then it is true. There are changes going on all around us and within us all the time.

If, however, the meaning of evolution includes going from inanimate to living material over time, then evolution is false. If the meaning of evolution includes changing from one species to another, then the meaning of evolution is false. All such proclamations of this happening have either, no evidence, or evidence that can be applied to other things, as well, thereby making such a form of evolution inconclusive.

If evolution is simply change, why not use the word "change?"

Experiments have shown how non living matter can form living matter and i already showed you, abiogenesis. It doenst matter what you believe because you cant think rationally, badecker and you already showed that in the post about god where you contradicted yourself 2 times in a row and then proceeded to ignore it. Evolution is a fact, only retards deny it. Science will keep applying it to more advancements. God, creationism, conspiracies and other supernatural bullshit hasnt been applied to anything and its not useful for anything or for anyone and it will never be because its crap

[BADecker]

Depending on what the definition of "evolution" might be, evolution could conceivably be true. For example, if "evolution" simply means "change," then it is true. There are changes going on all around us and within us all the time.

If, however, the meaning of evolution includes going from inanimate to living material over time, then evolution is false. If the meaning of evolution includes changing from one species to another, then the meaning of evolution is false. All such proclamations of this happening have either, no evidence, or evidence that can be applied to other things, as well, thereby making such a form of evolution inconclusive.

If evolution is simply change, why not use the word "change?"

Experiments have shown how non living matter can form living matter and i already showed you, abiogenesis.

But since no living matter was ever experimentally formed from non-living matter, the idea that it can be done is only an idea.

It doenst matter what you believe because you cant think rationally, badecker and you already showed that in the post about god where you contradicted yourself 2 times in a row and then proceeded to ignore it.

The only reason you talk like this is because you don't have any proof of evolution. Nobody does. The idea of evolution is completely conjecture. So, the best you can do is attempt to badmouth someone who shows that evolution is false.

Evolution is a fact, only retards deny it.

Evolution is a fact in the sense that science fiction absolutely exists.

Science will keep applying it to more advancements. God, creationism, conspiracies and other supernatural bullshit hasnt been applied to anything and its not useful for anything or for anyone and it will never be because its crap

God is the Guy Who holds the universe together.

[warrior333]

God holds nothing except religions. They have no imagination even to come up with something special. A fool of all people equally. Evolution is not a hoax. Yes, with some of its claims is debatable, but in General to deny its existence is impossible.

[BADecker]

God holds nothing except religions. They have no imagination even to come up with something special. A fool of all people equally. Evolution is not a hoax. Yes, with some of its claims is debatable, but in General to deny its existence is impossible.

Scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. This means that it has not been proven to be fact. If it had been proven to be fact, it would be a science law.

Because nobody has been able to prove it, scientists who want it to be fact, have twisted the meaning of "science theory" to include probability of probability regarding their science theory, so that they can make evolution seem like fact because their guess of probability says so.

In other words, there is no proof for evolution except that some scientists strongly believe that it is so.

[bkbirge]

That is absolutely not what the definition of a scientific theory is. Please educate yourself.