Evolution is a hoax

[bkbirge]

Everything develops from simple to complex. However, our brain has huge potential, which we use at 5-7%. The theory of evolution can not explain this.

The brain gets fully used, the 10% thing is a myth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

[1713581798]

1713581798

[1713581798]

1713581798

[1713581798]

1713581798

[1713581798]

1713581798

[raymondspeaks]

The fact that nobody has one scientifically factual, proven example of evolution, proves that we don't know that evolution is even possible. Monkeys, just like any other animals, have offspring of the same kind that the parents were, except if you breed them, just like you might breed other kinds of animals.

None of that is evolution in the form of evolution theory evolution. Without even one factual proof, why do people even think that evolution might exist?

Evolution is a hoax.

Yup - because talking snakes, men that walk on water, women that literally ascend to a magic place in the sky, and a big skydaddy - is a MUCH better theory?

[BADecker]

The fact that nobody has one scientifically factual, proven example of evolution, proves that we don't know that evolution is even possible. Monkeys, just like any other animals, have offspring of the same kind that the parents were, except if you breed them, just like you might breed other kinds of animals.

None of that is evolution in the form of evolution theory evolution. Without even one factual proof, why do people even think that evolution might exist?

Evolution is a hoax.

Yup - because talking snakes, men that walk on water, women that literally ascend to a magic place in the sky, and a big skydaddy - is a MUCH better theory?

Please explain your theory. And tell us how it is better than evolution theory.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT:

Top 10 Animals Who Can Talk

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


These People Are Walking On Water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-DZ0f0_NCA


WOMEN IN SPACE - NASA's Women Shuttle Astronauts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1v2EyWR6Ic


STEVE HAYES: Tired Old Queen at the Movies - THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1if-Liq8mc

---

[twthmoses]

The EVOLUTION OF BLOCKCHAINS and SMART CONTRACTS ..

Why would they not be able to make connections between calcium objects?
Say in a 100000 years We dig up a cellphone anno 1990 and a smartphone anno 2018, not knowing anything about phones, Why would We ever Think they are related? Dont look anything alike, Can barely communitcate, have very few simarly funktions. What on Earth would make us Think they are related? Just metal, plastic and wires in Common. But the fact is they are related. Its called evolution.
Its not one thing, in the case calcium that makes the proof, Its all the small dots, function, shape, size, materiale, etc. And Its called evolution.

Neither of you is talking evolution theory evolution (ETE), which is the kind of evolution shown in the OP. Rather, you both are using semantics - playing with the language. This shows that evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Consider one of the basics regarding missing link determinations in ETE. The amount of mutation change has to be so small between evolution stages, that you would not be able to tell the difference between directly before and directly after evolved creatures without DNA measurements.

Why does the mutation change have to be this small? Because if it weren't, we would be able to find evolution changes going on right now (if they existed), among all kinds of species all over the place. Yet we haven't found even one that we can prove. That's why ETE promoters theorize that the mutations have to be this tiny. It gives them a chance to suggest that evolution exists, even though they can't prove even one instance.

The whole idea of using skulls dated multiple thousands of years apart, gives ETE a chance. But it most definitely doesn't factually show or prove even one instance of ETE.

Read the article at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/ to understand why evolution is extremely doubtful. Since it is extremely doubtful, promoting evolution as fact turns evolution into a hoax being perpetrated by jokers who know it is not factual, and who know it is extremely doubtful, but talk it up as being factual, anyway.

Evolution is a hoax.

Very good article. Lots of very good points. Unfortunatly Its about origin of life primary, not evolution. On the origian of life, Well your guess is as good as mine. You Can bring Down the hand of god Or aliens if you like. The article use countless word saying evolution cant be prove, just to replace it with another theory, ID, that has abdolutly no proof What so ever! If it cant be this, it must be that! Narr thats not How it works. Proof of ID Thank you, Or dismiss it. That is What you do to evolution (never mind there is plenty of proof for evolution). Forgot all the scenice along the way?

What a cruel programmer it is! Invent the mosquito, put a bug in it, and have it kill of a billion of my other creations. Hmmm How is that for ID? Maybe it should just be D

[BADecker]

Read the article at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/ to understand why evolution is extremely doubtful. Since it is extremely doubtful, promoting evolution as fact turns evolution into a hoax being perpetrated by jokers who know it is not factual, and who know it is extremely doubtful, but talk it up as being factual, anyway.

Evolution is a hoax.

Very good article. Lots of very good points. Unfortunatly Its about origin of life primary, not evolution. On the origian of life, Well your guess is as good as mine. You Can bring Down the hand of god Or aliens if you like. The article use countless word saying evolution cant be prove, just to replace it with another theory, ID, that has abdolutly no proof What so ever! If it cant be this, it must be that! Narr thats not How it works. Proof of ID Thank you, Or dismiss it. That is What you do to evolution (never mind there is plenty of proof for evolution). Forgot all the scenice along the way?

What a cruel programmer it is! Invent the mosquito, put a bug in it, and have it kill of a billion of my other creations. Hmmm How is that for ID? Maybe it should just be D

Actually, the article is about evolution way more than it is about abiogenesis. Why? Because, while abiogenesis is a form of evolution in itself, it is a tiny, tiny part of the whole evolution idea. The only reason why evolutionists talk about it at all, is to distract from the point that there isn't any proof for evolution at all.

And that is exactly what you are doing with your post. Distracting from the fact that there is no evolution, and trying to condemn an article that shows how little real suggested evidence there really is for evolution. Then state your own idea of ID, and try to turn the whole thing into religion.

Well, you are kinda right. Evolution is a religion for those who barely understand it. Even though the article doesn't seem to say it directly, it DOES say it indirectly. How?

There are scientists who are not proponents of ID but simply see that much of official Darwinism does not make sense or comport with the evidence.

So, it takes a scientist to see that the evolution idea is messed up.

The point stands, evolution is a hoax, and a religious hoax for average people.

[raymondspeaks]

The fact that nobody has one scientifically factual, proven example of evolution, proves that we don't know that evolution is even possible. Monkeys, just like any other animals, have offspring of the same kind that the parents were, except if you breed them, just like you might breed other kinds of animals.

None of that is evolution in the form of evolution theory evolution. Without even one factual proof, why do people even think that evolution might exist?

Evolution is a hoax.

Yup - because talking snakes, men that walk on water, women that literally ascend to a magic place in the sky, and a big skydaddy - is a MUCH better theory?

Please explain your theory. And tell us how it is better than evolution theory.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT:

Top 10 Animals Who Can Talk

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


These People Are Walking On Water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-DZ0f0_NCA


WOMEN IN SPACE - NASA's Women Shuttle Astronauts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1v2EyWR6Ic


STEVE HAYES: Tired Old Queen at the Movies - THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1if-Liq8mc

---

LOL!

You can't conflate 6,000 years old text with modern day science. I ask you; with all those examples you gave me - could they have done those 2000-6000 years ago when the text was written?

[BADecker]

LOL!

You can't conflate 6,000 years old text with modern day science. I ask you; with all those examples you gave me - could they have done those 2000-6000 years ago when the text was written?

About conflation, science has done the conflation within itself without 6,000-y-o texts, already.

For example. It is common knowledge that if you pass a direct current through water, the water separates into hydrogen and oxygen. This is a fact. It is a solid fact that works every time. On the other hand, science theory is not fact, just as regular theory is not fact. The way that science makes science theory into a fact, is to say that it is factual that science theory is NOT fact.

So, the Theory of Evolution is fact in the sense that the Theory factually exists, just like all the other science theories. But, evolution itself is not known to be fact. How do we know? Because science tells us that it is factually a science theory.

Since we have no known-to-be factual evidence of evolution, evolution remains a theory. Yes, evolution is factually a science theory. But no, evolution is not known to be factual in itself.


Back in the early 1800s, there were court cases in the United States and the States. Nobody is alive who can explain any of those court cases to us from first hand observing of them being set in place. We find out about them from written record.

The interesting thing about those court cases is, we might think we understand them just by reading them, but English from the early 1800s was different than it was today. It takes a lot of study to figure out what a witness in one of those court cases really meant by what he said. But, the point is that the witnesses were still eye-witnesses, and are to be believed based on their sincerity in observation.

The Bible is eye witness accounts, just like science is. So, there is a form of conflation between the two. The similarity is that the Bible is written as fact. If it is telling a story within its pages, it says that it is just a story. This is just like science. Science is factual observations, except where it says that it is not fact. When does science say it is not fact? In science theory. So, both the Bible and science tell us when they are speaking factually and when they are not.


Evolution theory is said by science to factually be a theory, which means that evolution is factually not a fact. Yet evolution is touted as fact in multitudes of books, and on multitudes of web pages. Since many of the people who say that evolution is a fact, know that it is factually not a fact (aka, science theory), yet they present it as fact...

Evolution is a hoax.

[twthmoses]

What are you on about BADecker? You point me to an article about ID and origin of life, primarly, Which i actually says has Lots of good points, and is overall a very good article - and you accuse me of trying to discredit it!! Do me the courtesy of Reading before you answer. Thank you.

Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair  Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.

You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?

[BADecker]

What are you on about BADecker? You point me to an article about ID and origin of life, primarly, Which i actually says has Lots of good points, and is overall a very good article - and you accuse me of trying to discredit it!! Do me the courtesy of Reading before you answer. Thank you.

Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair  Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.

You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?

Now it is you who didn't read the article. The article wasn't about ID even though it had some talk about ID in it.

The article is about how evolution doesn't have any solid proof behind it. It is about that most of evolution is just talk so that lay people have faith in evolution. It has to do with the fact that when scientific evolutionists get right down to the science of evolution, they realize that there is essentially nothing there, and that evolution should be banned as a scientific theory.

The article only talks about ID because ID is just about the only alternative to evolution that we can come up with. Since evolution has not even one shred of proof, but only has a bunch of talk that there is proof, the whole idea of evolution falls into the same class as religion. But ID is evident all around us.

Did you miss the part about the author himself:

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

Then he goes on to say:

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.

The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations. Random mutations are as far from design as you can get. But our experience of design - people making machines - takes things that don't have so much order in them, and make it into more order. It's called design. Random mutation is disorder, not more order. Random mutation is not design, but the opposite of design.

Everything operates in an orderly fashion. The complexity of order in the universe is extremely great. So, the order is great. The ID is great. That's just the opposite of random mutation. Somebody talked you into believing that randomness and mutation have to do with intelligent design, because the universe is orderly, like it was designed. You have a backwards, self-contradictory religion going for yourself in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

What are you on about BADecker? You point me to an article about ID and origin of life, primarly, Which i actually says has Lots of good points, and is overall a very good article - and you accuse me of trying to discredit it!! Do me the courtesy of Reading before you answer. Thank you.

Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair  Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.

You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?

Now it is you who didn't read the article. The article wasn't about ID even though it had some talk about ID in it.

The article is about how evolution doesn't have any solid proof behind it. It is about that most of evolution is just talk so that lay people have faith in evolution. It has to do with the fact that when scientific evolutionists get right down to the science of evolution, they realize that there is essentially nothing there, and that evolution should be banned as a scientific theory.

The article only talks about ID because ID is just about the only alternative to evolution that we can come up with. Since evolution has not even one shred of proof, but only has a bunch of talk that there is proof, the whole idea of evolution falls into the same class as religion. But ID is evident all around us.

Did you miss the part about the author himself:

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

Then he goes on to say:

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.

The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations. Random mutations are as far from design as you can get. But our experience of design - people making machines - takes things that don't have so much order in them, and make it into more order. It's called design. Random mutation is disorder, not more order. Random mutation is not design, but the opposite of design.

Everything operates in an orderly fashion. The complexity of order in the universe is extremely great. So, the order is great. The ID is great. That's just the opposite of random mutation. Somebody talked you into believing that randomness and mutation have to do with intelligent design, because the universe is orderly, like it was designed. You have a backwards, self-contradictory religion going for yourself in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

''The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations'' Another classic lie by badecker.

''Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. ''

[BADecker]

What are you on about BADecker? You point me to an article about ID and origin of life, primarly, Which i actually says has Lots of good points, and is overall a very good article - and you accuse me of trying to discredit it!! Do me the courtesy of Reading before you answer. Thank you.

Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair  Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.

You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?

Now it is you who didn't read the article. The article wasn't about ID even though it had some talk about ID in it.

The article is about how evolution doesn't have any solid proof behind it. It is about that most of evolution is just talk so that lay people have faith in evolution. It has to do with the fact that when scientific evolutionists get right down to the science of evolution, they realize that there is essentially nothing there, and that evolution should be banned as a scientific theory.

The article only talks about ID because ID is just about the only alternative to evolution that we can come up with. Since evolution has not even one shred of proof, but only has a bunch of talk that there is proof, the whole idea of evolution falls into the same class as religion. But ID is evident all around us.

Did you miss the part about the author himself:

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

Then he goes on to say:

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.

The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations. Random mutations are as far from design as you can get. But our experience of design - people making machines - takes things that don't have so much order in them, and make it into more order. It's called design. Random mutation is disorder, not more order. Random mutation is not design, but the opposite of design.

Everything operates in an orderly fashion. The complexity of order in the universe is extremely great. So, the order is great. The ID is great. That's just the opposite of random mutation. Somebody talked you into believing that randomness and mutation have to do with intelligent design, because the universe is orderly, like it was designed. You have a backwards, self-contradictory religion going for yourself in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

''The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations'' Another classic lie by badecker.

''Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. ''

Yet, many websites and books talk about the random mutations of evolution. You can find some of them if you Google "evolution random mutation."

If the evolution process doesn't work by random mutations, then it is guided - which it is by cause and effect - by someone or something that is thousands of times smarter than our smartest scientists or groups of scientists. How can evolution be smarter than scientists? Scientists have yet to figure out how to create their first life from scratch. But, something made nature to have life on Earth in countless forms and countless numbers of procreations.

We don't have a hint of a method that describes this process in evolution theory. Basically all evolution theory says is that it happened. It would be a lot easier and more accurate to say that there is an All-knowing and All-powerful Creator that designed and made all of nature, than to think that evolution in any form we can come up with, could make nature.

Evolution is a hoax. And thank you for helping to show this.

[Astargath]

What are you on about BADecker? You point me to an article about ID and origin of life, primarly, Which i actually says has Lots of good points, and is overall a very good article - and you accuse me of trying to discredit it!! Do me the courtesy of Reading before you answer. Thank you.

Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair  Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.

You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?

Now it is you who didn't read the article. The article wasn't about ID even though it had some talk about ID in it.

The article is about how evolution doesn't have any solid proof behind it. It is about that most of evolution is just talk so that lay people have faith in evolution. It has to do with the fact that when scientific evolutionists get right down to the science of evolution, they realize that there is essentially nothing there, and that evolution should be banned as a scientific theory.

The article only talks about ID because ID is just about the only alternative to evolution that we can come up with. Since evolution has not even one shred of proof, but only has a bunch of talk that there is proof, the whole idea of evolution falls into the same class as religion. But ID is evident all around us.

Did you miss the part about the author himself:

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

Then he goes on to say:

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.

The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations. Random mutations are as far from design as you can get. But our experience of design - people making machines - takes things that don't have so much order in them, and make it into more order. It's called design. Random mutation is disorder, not more order. Random mutation is not design, but the opposite of design.

Everything operates in an orderly fashion. The complexity of order in the universe is extremely great. So, the order is great. The ID is great. That's just the opposite of random mutation. Somebody talked you into believing that randomness and mutation have to do with intelligent design, because the universe is orderly, like it was designed. You have a backwards, self-contradictory religion going for yourself in evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

''The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations'' Another classic lie by badecker.

''Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. ''

Yet, many websites and books talk about the random mutations of evolution. You can find some of them if you Google "evolution random mutation."

If the evolution process doesn't work by random mutations, then it is guided - which it is by cause and effect - by someone or something that is thousands of times smarter than our smartest scientists or groups of scientists. How can evolution be smarter than scientists? Scientists have yet to figure out how to create their first life from scratch. But, something made nature to have life on Earth in countless forms and countless numbers of procreations.

We don't have a hint of a method that describes this process in evolution theory. Basically all evolution theory says is that it happened. It would be a lot easier and more accurate to say that there is an All-knowing and All-powerful Creator that designed and made all of nature, than to think that evolution in any form we can come up with, could make nature.

Evolution is a hoax. And thank you for helping to show this.

Any website about anything might have the words random in it, we use it all the time. Poker is random, a lot of luck is involved, wouldn't you say? Science hasn't proved that everything is guided or has a cause.

[BADecker]

Any website about anything might have the words random in it, we use it all the time. Poker is random, a lot of luck is involved, wouldn't you say? Science hasn't proved that everything is guided or has a cause.

That's a truly nice observation, there, but it doesn't have even a single proof that evolution exists in it.

There are millions or billions or trillions of readily observable instances of adaptation and like-begets-like. The odds for evolution happening even once are so small, that evolution is an impossibility, scientifically speaking.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Any website about anything might have the words random in it, we use it all the time. Poker is random, a lot of luck is involved, wouldn't you say? Science hasn't proved that everything is guided or has a cause.

That's a truly nice observation, there, but it doesn't have even a single proof that evolution exists in it.

There are millions or billions or trillions of readily observable instances of adaptation and like-begets-like. The odds for evolution happening even once are so small, that evolution is an impossibility, scientifically speaking.

Evolution is a hoax.

Scientifically speaking I already gave you scientific examples of evolution confirmed by scientists. https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

All of this accepted by virtually all scientists... Just saying...

[BADecker]

Scientifically speaking I already gave you scientific examples of evolution confirmed by scientists. https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

All of this accepted by virtually all scientists... Just saying...

That's a nice science fiction article, there. But it doesn't have even one proof that evolution exists in it.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Scientifically speaking I already gave you scientific examples of evolution confirmed by scientists. https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

All of this accepted by virtually all scientists... Just saying...

That's a nice science fiction article, there. But it doesn't have even one proof that evolution exists in it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well I mean, your argument is basically saying to anything that's proof of evolution, that is not. Not much of an argument really.

[BADecker]

Scientifically speaking I already gave you scientific examples of evolution confirmed by scientists. https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

All of this accepted by virtually all scientists... Just saying...

That's a nice science fiction article, there. But it doesn't have even one proof that evolution exists in it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well I mean, your argument is basically saying to anything that's proof of evolution, that is not. Not much of an argument really.

So far, every proof of evolution you have shown, is simply proof of adaptation and/or like-begets-like. It is proof of how people try to delude themselves and each other with lies, as well.

The neat thing is, when scientists get right down to showing proof for evolution, they admit that there isn't any, and that even the IDEA of evolution doesn't have much of any real support for itself - https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

[Astargath]

Scientifically speaking I already gave you scientific examples of evolution confirmed by scientists. https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

All of this accepted by virtually all scientists... Just saying...

That's a nice science fiction article, there. But it doesn't have even one proof that evolution exists in it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well I mean, your argument is basically saying to anything that's proof of evolution, that is not. Not much of an argument really.

So far, every proof of evolution you have shown, is simply proof of adaptation and/or like-begets-like. It is proof of how people try to delude themselves and each other with lies, as well.

The neat thing is, when scientists get right down to showing proof for evolution, they admit that there isn't any, and that even the IDEA of evolution doesn't have much of any real support for itself - https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/.

Religion is truly a mental illness. Look what it did to you, unable to accept anything other than a book written 6k years ago. Even your fellow delusional friends accept evolution.

[Nat77777]

I’m gonna need a Tim foil hat after reading some of these comments.

[Earl Ragnaar]

Well as far as i have heard about the evolution is that "is where species change and adjust for them to have the capacity to survive". Advancement is a long procedure, it could take several years, hundreds of years, or even a large number of years. Likewise, the logical hypothesis of the advancement of man does not particularly said monkeys; it just specified that man originated from "chimp like" precursors. Notwithstanding that, to help my previously mentioned explanation, as per my exploration, the entire procedure of the development of man took about finished a time of roughly a large number of years.